Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Options
1…129130132134135…323

Comments

  • Options
    #3932
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Hande hoche! wrote: »
    Might be a reference to the Chinese propaganda appearing in Iowa newspapers.

    I forgot that one.

    On another topic, Avenatti has released a sworn declaration from the other woman.

    https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044960428730843136

    This woman has sworn under penalty of perjury that Kavanaugh did the things that Avenatti suggested he did a few days ago. Namely, getting shítfaced, being a pest, the gang rape train thing, spiking punch etc.

    Whatever about his shameless self-promoting style, he sure does deliver.

    EDIT: Beaten to it by everlast75


  • Options
    #3933
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,367 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Hande hoche! wrote: »
    Might be a reference to the Chinese propaganda appearing in Iowa newspapers.

    He's claimed that China is targeting vulnerable GOP seats via tariffs. If so, well done China.


  • Options
    #3934
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    He's claimed that China is targeting vulnerable GOP seats via sanctions. If so, well done China.

    It's also the standard go-to response from the EU as well. It's quite effective.


  • Options
    #3935
    jooksavage
    Registered Users Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭jooksavage


    everlast75 wrote: »
    In the words of Mr. Wittes...

    "Boom"

    https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044960428730843136


    Holy crap.


    If Kavanaugh still gets OK'd by the Rs now, presumably the Dems will investigate the hell out of all of this if/when they take the house? Surely at this point the R's would be better to cut their losses and nominate someone else.


  • Options
    #3936
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,265 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    jooksavage wrote: »
    Holy crap.


    If Kavanaugh still gets OK'd by the Rs now, presumably the Dems will investigate the hell out of all of this if/when they take the house? Surely at this point the R's would be better to cut their losses and nominate someone else.

    Might be the first SCOTUS to be impeached. Not the legacy one might want as a judge!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3937
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,404 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    everlast75 wrote: »
    In the words of Mr. Wittes...

    "Boom"

    If Kavanaugh makes it to SCOTUS, I see impeachment in his future. Maybe not the immediate future, but certainly the next time Democrats hold enough power to do so. At this stage there should be more than enough reason to pull his nomination, yet they won't, and I can't see Collins and Murkowski voting against the rest of the GOP. The GOP have put too much of their weight behind Kavanaugh, Collins & Murkowski will be under strict and severe orders to get in line.


  • Options
    #3938
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    everlast75 wrote: »
    In the words of Mr. Wittes...

    "Boom"

    https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044960428730843136
    TBH, a lot of this can be explained away as "teenage boys try to get laid", it's not really a shocker. Though it obviously does contradict Kavanaugh's claims to be a saint.

    The rape claim is obviously serious but this person doesn't directly accuse Kavanaugh or Judge of this.


  • Options
    #3939
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1044967989731381248


  • Options
    #3940
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Pelvis wrote: »
    TBH, a lot of this can be explained away as "teenage boys try to get laid", it's not really a shocker.

    The rape claim is obviously serious but this person doesn't directly accuse Kavanaugh or Judge of this.

    No. But it does place him there and it raises questions about what he knew about and what he did himself. It also fits a pattern established by others over the past few days.


  • Options
    #3941
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Pelvis wrote: »
    everlast75 wrote: »
    In the words of Mr. Wittes...

    "Boom"

    https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044960428730843136
    TBH, a lot of this can be explained away as "teenage boys try to get laid", it's not really a shocker. Though it obviously does contradict Kavanaugh's claims to be a saint.

    The rape claim is obviously serious but this person doesn't directly accuse Kavanaugh or Judge of this.

    It can't. It far exceeds teenage boy tries to get laid. Did you not read the train/gang rape section? That is not getting laid. Getting laid suggests both parties consent. Drugging the girls and ...

    Boys who will be boys like this deserve no mercy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3942
    alchemist33
    Registered Users Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭alchemist33


    Pelvis wrote: »
    TBH, a lot of this can be explained away as "teenage boys try to get laid", it's not really a shocker. Though it obviously does contradict Kavanaugh's claims to be a saint.

    At the start, yes. But she directly accuses them of spiking drinks so they can rape girls which nobody could argue is normal (or legal) teenage behaviour. The statement is a little low on specifics at times but there should be enough there for any reasonable person to call a halt to this.


  • Options
    #3943
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,179 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Pelvis wrote: »
    TBH, a lot of this can be explained away as "teenage boys try to get laid", it's not really a shocker.


    No, it can't. If you hung around circles as a teenager in which you and your friends tried to drug women in order to rape them, and don't find this type of thing as shocking, then I just dunno.


  • Options
    #3944
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    Calina wrote: »
    It can't. It far exceeds teenage boy tries to get laid. Did you not read the train/gang rape section? That is not getting laid. Getting laid suggests both parties consent. Drugging the girls and ...

    Yes but that's all conjecture unless this person actually witnessed someone being raped. In any sort of cross examination this kind of testimony would be destroyed. Question 1 will be, why didn't you call the police if you thought someone was being gang raped, or that this was a regular occurrence?


  • Options
    #3945
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Pelvis wrote: »
    Yes but that's all conjecture unless this person actually witnessed someone being raped. In any sort of cross examination this kind of testimony would be destroyed. Question 1 will be, why didn't you call the police if you thought someone was being gang raped, or that this was a regular occurrence?


    She said she was a victim of a gang rape which included Kavanaugh and Judge.


  • Options
    #3946
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,179 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Pelvis wrote: »
    Yes but that's all conjecture unless this person actually witnessed someone being raped. In any sort of cross examination this kind of testimony would be destroyed. Question 1 will be, why didn't you call the police if you thought someone was being gang raped, or that this was a regular occurrence?

    Eh, is herself being raped not a good enough witness for you?


  • Options
    #3947
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    She said she was a victim of a gang rape which included Kavanaugh and Judge.
    Hurrache wrote: »
    Eh, is herself being raped not a good enough witness for you?

    She doesn't directly accuse Kavanaugh or Judge of that.


  • Options
    #3948
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Pelvis wrote: »
    Calina wrote: »
    It can't. It far exceeds teenage boy tries to get laid. Did you not read the train/gang rape section? That is not getting laid. Getting laid suggests both parties consent. Drugging the girls and ...

    Yes but that's all conjecture unless this person actually witnessed someone being raped. In any sort of cross examination this kind of testimony would be destroyed. Question 1 will be, why didn't you call the police if you thought someone was being gang raped, or that this was a regular occurrence?

    Because routinely, like right now, your post, women's complaints are dismissed or not taken seriously and in the 1980s, that was even worse.


  • Options
    #3949
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,404 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Regardless, if Kavanaugh testifies tomorrow that he didn't engage in any such acts (spiking drinks, groping girls or grinding against them, any of the other things she directly says he did do), then there's now a sworn affidavit by someone saying she saw him do those things, and there will likely more people who will back up her claims officially.

    Which means either he can admit to doing some of those things (but nothing illegal or as serious as rape) which would mean he has been lying in previous interviews he's given (not under oath, but still shows him to have lied and therefore be untrustworthy), or he can stand by his story that he did absolutely nothing wrong, and face probable impeachment proceedings in the future due to numerous people corroborating her and Ford's stories under oath.

    At this point if I was Kavanaugh, I'd be getting the hell out of dodge. Not admit to anything, just say "This sh*t ain't worth it" and nope the f*ck out of there.


  • Options
    #3950
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,179 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Pelvis wrote: »
    She doesn't directly accuse Kavanaugh or Judge of that.

    It's about his character and how he claims he behaved as a student, to what others say the reality is.


  • Options
    #3951
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,404 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Pelvis wrote: »
    She doesn't directly accuse Kavanaugh or Judge of that.

    She doesn't say they didn't either. It's ambiguous, possibly due to her saying she had been drugged. However if this was something she saw happen to other girls before and she claims Kavanaugh & Judge were part of those times, it would be fair to say she likely believes they had raped her too, but can't definitively state it as part of a sworn testimony.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3952
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    Calina wrote: »
    Because routinely, like right now, your post, women's complaints are dismissed or not taken seriously and in the 1980s, that was even worse.

    Really? A fear of this is understandable for the victim, but it doesn't really fly for a witness.
    Penn wrote: »
    She doesn't say they didn't either. It's ambiguous, possibly due to her saying she had been drugged. However if this was something she saw happen to other girls before and she claims Kavanaugh & Judge were part of those times, it would be fair to say she likely believes they had raped her too, but can't definitively state it as part of a sworn testimony.

    My point being, because she doesn't directly accuse them, this will be used by republicans to downplay her affidavit. If she doesn't directly accuse them then her rape can be ignored as it's not relevant to this nomination (though obviously it can be investigated separately), as for the rest...

    "The punch was spiked? Isn't this par for the course at parties?"
    "Guys lining up to have sex with girls? Were you in the room? How do you know it was not consensual?"


  • Options
    #3953
    Rjd2
    Registered Users Posts: 12,043 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Collins, Murkowski, Flake, and Corker before this week had not committed to voting for him and this is probably the final nail in the coffin for him regardless of whether true or not.

    Heck supposedly there was others like Sasse, Rubio etc were waiting for tomorrows testimony to make up there mind.

    Shocked if Mitch is not preparing plan b aka Kethledge or Hardiman as I type.


  • Options
    #3954
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,693 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Well Michael avanatti said he'd name the women and give evidence and Jesus did he. The whole thing is troubling and just goes against all this Angel narrative that Bret Kavanagh has tried to paint himself as. She gives more firm time frames than either women before her and names a place in Maryland.

    The thing that might make it harder than a Romanian gymnasts routine to get out of for the GOP is the level of clearance she has had in the past and where she has worked. It's an impressive list to ruin over some false allegations.


  • Options
    #3955
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,693 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Pelvis wrote: »
    Really? A fear of this is understandable for the victim, but it doesn't really fly for a witness.



    My point being, because she doesn't directly accuse them, this will be used by republicans to downplay her affidavit. If she doesn't directly accuse them then her rape can be ignored as it's not relevant to this nomination (though obviously it can be investigated separately), as for the rest...

    "The punch was spiked? Isn't this par for the course at parties?"
    "Guys lining up to have sex with girls? Were you in the room? How do you know it was not consensual?"

    No.


  • Options
    #3956
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Coincidentally, Kavanaugh had "Beach Week" in his calendar and this woman also claims in her sworn testimony that she witnessed the drunken, creepy and abusive conduct during "Beach Week".


  • Options
    #3957
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,265 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    There are calls for him to be impeached now, nevermind if/when he is appointed onto the SCOTUS

    https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1044970331872612352


  • Options
    #3958
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Rjd2 wrote: »

    Shocked if Mitch is not preparing plan b aka Kethledge or Hardiman as I type.

    He's probably being physically restrained by Kelly as he tries to strangle Trump.

    Seriously though, how hard can it be to find another Gorsuch? That's all they had to do and it would have been an easy win. Instead they tried to push through a nominee that even McConnell knew would be difficult due to his paper trail.

    Also, moving on, this doesn't look good...

    https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1044979264058261504


  • Options
    #3959
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,270 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    He's probably being physically restrained by Kelly as he tries to strangle Trump.

    Seriously though, how hard can it be to find another Gorsuch? That's all they had to do and it would have been an easy win. Instead they tried to push through a nominee that even McConnell knew would be difficult due to his paper trail.

    Because Trump wanted someone who supported the "the President is above the law" interpretation of the constitution


  • Options
    #3960
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Because Trump wanted someone who supported the "the President is above the law" interpretation of the constitution

    Yeah. And according to some reporting from earlier today, last night or some time like that, Orin Hatch submitted an amicus brief in a supreme court case about the ability of states to prosecute cases which were pardoned at the federal level.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3961
    Rjd2
    Registered Users Posts: 12,043 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    He's probably being physically restrained by Kelly as he tries to strangle Trump.

    Seriously though, how hard can it be to find another Gorsuch? That's all they had to do and it would have been an easy win. Instead they tried to push through a nominee that even McConnell knew would be difficult due to his paper trail.

    Its the strangest of hills to die on really. They could have found numerous creditable conservative judges who would have done there bidding. Heck if Mitch wanted to keep the base happy he could have forced Barrett through and at least there would be none of these allegations about her.:o

    I don't even think its Trump totally at fault here, there is serious Koch brothers money behind Kavanaugh and a sizable Bush element of the party (who loath Trump) who wanted Kavanaugh and went to bat for him.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement