Lying during your job interview is disqualifyingKavanaugh is most certainly lying about what was written in his yearbook.
Kavanaugh is most certainly lying about what was written in his yearbook.
He's always so concerned
So much concern
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...gh-ford-hearing-was-never-about-truth/571729/
Let us fully dispense with the polite fiction that last week’s Senate hearings on the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh were intended to bring us closer to a common understanding of the truth. This entire affair is not about truth, but power—who will wield it, and at whose expenseAgreed, although not necessarily the entirety of the rest of his conclusions. Interesting read
Ah, the response of someone with nothing to say. :beer:
We're just not willing to entertain your "But Hillary!" diversion into false equivalency.
It’s a valid point that it seems many here are uncomfortable trying to address or default to some kind of lame arguement that "a presidency is only four years so it doesn’t really matter". Pretending to want the truth about Ms Fords allegations and that it should immediately disqualify Mr Kavanaugh seems empty knowing that you voted a woman to be president knowing that she sought to ruin the reputations of alleged rape victims and possibly intimidate them into silence because it was inconvenient for her and her husband politically.
Besides, posting "concern" is an empty diversion.
It’s a valid point that it seems many here are uncomfortable trying to address or default to some kind of lame arguement that "a presidency is only four years so it doesn’t really matter". Pretending to want the truth about Ms Fords allegations and that it should immediately disqualify Mr Kavanaugh seems empty knowing that you voted a woman to be president knowing that she sought to ruin the reputations of alleged rape victims and possibly intimidate them into silence because it was inconvenient for her and her husband politically.
Besides, posting "concern" is an empty diversion.
You are comparing a sexual assaulter with a wife who was cheated on.
No I’m comparing an alleged sexual assaulted to a politician who sought dirt on women who were alleging sexual assault in order to run a smear campaign on them to tarnish their reputations because the allegations were a political inconvenience. And yeah she was cheated on too.
No I’m comparing an alleged sexual assaulted to a politician who sought dirt on women who were alleging sexual assault in order to run a smear campaign on them to tarnish their reputations because the allegations were a political inconvenience. And yeah she was cheated on too.
Edited: reading failure on my part.
You are still comparing an assailant with someone who is married to an assailant, who is a victim in her own right. Her "smear campaign" was a typical human reflex, especially prevalent among females.
Her smear campaign is a politicians reflex, prevelant among politicians. I don’t think her gender has anything to do with it.
Nah, my arguement is you only seem to selectively care about sexual assault allegations and were going to elect a woman for president who ridiculed those making the accusations, was involved with trying to research dirt on them to attack their reputations, and possibly even tried to intimidate them into silence.
It’s not about politics, right?
I can confirm that hiring investigators to dig up dirt on those doing the accusations in an attempt to smear their reputation and possibly intimidating them into silence is somewhere in the same ballpark.
Yep like I said I don’t really agree with the rest of his conclusions, but he’s spot on about it being about power not truth.
For one, it was one testimony. Two, any corroborating evidence she had wasn't allowed to be submitted to the committee, such as her therapy sessions, her polygraphers testimony on the results of the polygraph, and any other potential witnesses (her husband, Mike judge).
Finally, there was also no cross examination of the accused.
So thanks for posting that little turd. She was a political pawn and was happy to play the part.
Ms Ford is the one that didn’t turn over the therapy notes and lie detector results. Shared them with WaPo but when the Senate Committee asked she didn’t provide to them. You don’t find that odd?
Did she share them with the WaPo. Did she not share them? Did she just share a summary? 8 weeks ago and she couldn't remember. Whatever.Ms Ford is the one that didn’t turn over the therapy notes and lie detector results. Shared them with WaPo but when the Senate Committee asked she didn’t provide to them. You don’t find that odd?
I'm not sure what your post reeks of more, stupidity or desperation. In either case, stay downwind. Fucking idiot.For one, it was one testimony. Two, any corroborating evidence she had wasn't allowed to be submitted to the committee, such as her therapy sessions, her polygraphers testimony on the results of the polygraph, and any other potential witnesses (her husband, Mike judge).
Finally, there was also no cross examination of the accused.
So thanks for posting that little turd. She was a political pawn and was happy to play the part.