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

mcmoustache

2 Scoops wrote: »

Ah hear.. Imagine being in his position just for a second. I thought he was exaggerating too fwiw but it's a totally reasonable reaction to what has happened to him and his family.

I'd expect him to man up and have some balls; he wasn't a nominee for Celebrity Big Brother - it was for the supreme court. Even Thomas was able to remain composed.



Ford had to relocate her family without state protection and remained composed and didn't let her emotions get the better of her.

2 Scoops

Thargor wrote: »

So you've run your eye over the case and decided theres a possibility he grabbed her and pushed her down on the bed but less believable that he covered her mouth doing that? What mental gymnastics did you go through to arrive at that opinion?

I think that Brett despite living a stellar life since then, was a real party boy in college and it's coming back to bite him on the arse. I think you have to be a real psychopath to attempt rape, drunk or not. There is a distinction between aggressively kissing someone to covering someones face then ripping their clothes off.

2 Scoops

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'd expect him to man up and have some balls; he wasn't a nominee for Celebrity Big Brother - it was for the supreme court. Even Thomas was able to remain composed.

Ford had to relocate her family without state protection and remained composed and didn't let her emotions get the better of her.

I didn't think it was genuine if that means anything, which is why I have my doubts in both directions over what happened.

mcmoustache

Leroy42 wrote: »

Apologies. My quick search couldn't show you used the word libtard. I'll just put this here to clear things up

[Loony left wing are normalizing this. Huffpo is probably the crème de la crème when you consider utter sludge like salon and polygon. Ideology takes a precedent over facts
21-Sep-2018 17:57 in After Hours by 2 Scoops]

To be fair, huffpo editorials are often garbage. And there is certainly a looney left out there and salon also comes out with an awful lot of utter shíte.

TomOnBoard

"President Trump ordered the FBI to reopen the background investigation of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh after two key Senate Republicans suggested they would not vote to confirm him to the Supreme Court without additional information on his alleged sexual misconduct while he was a teenager."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-committee-prepares-to-vote-on-kavanaugh-nomination-as-key-senators-remain-silent/2018/09/28/0b143292-c305-11e8-b338-a3289f6cb742_story.html?utm_term=.c0bbe6731d86

Huge kudos to Dr Ford. Without her courageous intervention this would absolutely NOT have happened...

SimonTemplar

I have no problem with a person who is in Kavanagh's position displaying emotion. I don't really have an issue with his crying. As I said before, I put that down to the mounting pressure and stress that's being building up. But there is a big difference between passionately defending yourself, and angrily ranting a long diatribe, including suggestions of a Clinton conspiracy, followed by blatant childish petulance toward the Democratic senators.

2 Scoops

Leroy42 wrote: »

And she did provide it. 100% she said. There was one other person she claims was in the room. A friend of his, so a risky strategy if she is lying.Yet his friend refuses to back him up. She could have easily claimed it was just the two of them, what possible reason to bring a third party into it? Particularly a 3rd party close to the other side?Why has this friend not come forward to help Brett? That is the question you need to ask.

This isn't true is it? I read multiple times all witnesses cited said they have no recollection of the party.

listermint

2 Scoops wrote: »

This isn't true is it? I read multiple times all witnesses cited said they have no recollection of the party.

Which all witnesses?

The FBI haven't gone and questioned everyone yet.

Hold you fire their horse. You may get super embarrassed inside a week.

2 Scoops

listermint wrote: »

Which all witnesses?

The FBI haven't gone and questioned everyone yet.

Hold you fire their horse. You may get super embarrassed inside a week.

The ones cited in Ford's letter. I won't be embarrassed no matter what happens, just looking at the facts as the stand right now. What he said isn't true.

mcmoustache

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I have no problem with a person who is in Kavanagh's position displaying emotion. I don't really have an issue with his crying. As I said before, I put that down to the mounting pressure and stress that's being building up. But there is a big difference between passionately defending yourself, and angrily ranting a long diatribe, including suggestions of a Clinton conspiracy, and blatant childish petulance toward the Democratic senators.

I don't have a big problem with that either. The lying and belligerence is a bigger issue.


In the post that I made earlier about him being emotional, I was being somewhat flippant and used adjectives that are usually reserved for women and implied that he could be on his period.


My girlfriend has warned me not to make jokes many, many times.

Rjd2

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I have no problem with a person who is in Kavanagh's position displaying emotion. I don't really have an issue with his crying. As I said before, I put that down to the mounting pressure and stress that's being building up. But there is a big difference between passionately defending yourself, and angrily ranting a long diatribe, including suggestions of a Clinton conspiracy, followed by blatant childish petulance toward the Democratic senators.

I think both sides are making to much of this tbh. He is entitled to be angry if innocent as he has been called all sorts of names under the sun over last few weeks and some from supposed unbiased sources. His wife has been getting death threats and supposedly his daughters have also. Lets be frank, many would be wondering why he was showing no emotions if he was as calm as he supposedly needed to be.

He did go down the rabbit hole a little when he did start talking Clinton etc as he did not really follow through on that which was weird as spent a long time talking. He did at least apologise to the Dem senator who he went after rather harshly.

It shouldn't be the deciding factor one way or other as plenty happened Yesterday outside his opening speech.

2 Scoops

Official now;

https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1045779267827699712

listermint

2 Scoops wrote: »

The ones cited in Ford's letter. I won't be embarrassed no matter what happens, just looking at the facts as the stand right now. What he said isn't true.

They haven't been questioned by anyone though. Hopefully the FBI will though.

So we can come back to this post soon enough.

Interesting though why you haven't said yet an FBI investigation would be reasonable.

Why is that, let me guess it's a contrary view and only plays up to the 'lib' 'tards' and you love seeing them getting powned...

2 Scoops

listermint wrote: »

They haven't been questioned by anyone though. Hopefully the FBI will though.

So we can come back to this post soon enough.

Interesting though why you haven't said yet an FBI investigation would be reasonable.

Why is that, let me guess it's a contrary view and only plays up to the 'lib' 'tards' and you love seeing them getting powned...

They've provided written statements to the committee. They are fact witnesses under penalty of perjury.

Bolded part a good few posts back I said I wasn't against it. You are extremely aggressive man, it isn't healthy.

Water John

Judge has provided nothing, his lawyer simply wrote a note on his behalf.

listermint

2 Scoops wrote: »

They've provided written statements to the committee. They are fact witnesses under penalty of perjury.

Bolded part a good few posts back I said I wasn't against it. You are extremely aggressive man, it isn't healthy.

These statements mean f all.

You know it. I know it.

Back to my question about the FBI. Why did you avoid that. Give specifics

mcmoustache

2 Scoops wrote: »

They've provided written statements to the committee. They are fact witnesses under penalty of perjury.

Bolded part a good few posts back I said I wasn't against it. You are extremely aggressive man, it isn't healthy.

I think that perjury charges need to be initiated by the senate which is unlikely given that they're all in on Kavanaugh (i hate that spelling btw). However, if the fbi ask the same questions and get different answers, things could get interesting.

mcmoustache

listermint wrote: »

These statements mean f all.

You know it. I know it.

Back to my question about the FBI. Why did you avoid that. Give specifics

I don't want to be backing up 2 scoops here but I'm pretty sure that those notes were provided under penalty of perjury.

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein:

As I stated in my attorney [sic], Barbara Ven Gelder’s September 18, 2018, letter, I did not ask to be involved in this matter nor did anyone ask me to be involved. We have told the Committee that I do not want to comment about these events publicly. As a recovering alcoholic and a cancer survivor, I have struggled with depression and anxiety. As a result, I avoid public speaking.

Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school, but we have not spoken directly in several years. I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee today. I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.

I am knowingly submitting this letter under penalty of felony.

Sincerely yours,

Mark Judge

Witnessed By:

Barbara Ven Gelder, counsel for Mark Judge

2 Scoops

listermint wrote: »

These statements mean f all.

You know it. I know it.

Back to my question about the FBI. Why did you avoid that. Give specifics

Statements under penalty of perjury mean f all? That's your opinion, it isn't mine.

I already said I have nothing against the FBI investigating but it should have happened 2 months ago behind closed doors when this accusation came to light.

aloyisious

2 Scoops wrote: »

This isn't true is it? I read multiple times all witnesses cited said they have no recollection of the party.

The words used by Ms Keyser were that SHE wasn't at a party as described by Prof Ford. That is explained by the fact that she was NOT in the room occupied by Prof Ford and logically can't have seen what was described by Prof Ford. Prof Ford did not say Ms Keyser was in the room but stated Ms Keyser was downstairs in the house. Prof Ward said she, Judge Kavanaugh and Mr Judge were in the room. Mr Judge said in the letter from his lawyer, and in his own later signed letter, that he didn't see what was described by Prof Ford happen. He did NOT state in either letter that he was NOT in the room with both the Prof and judge Kavanaugh at the time of the alleged assault.

As for the quote about statements under penalty of perjury, the only people who actually made such statements were the Prof and Judge Kavanaugh. The judge filibustered one senator out of question-time when the senator was asking him if he understood the letter from Mr Judge's lawyer was NOT a statement under penalty of perjury.

As for the FBI starting an investigation two months age when the accusation against Judge Kavanaugh, the question remains as to why the GOP committee failed to initiate one and blocked [until yesterday - Friday] any such investigation and why Judge Kavanaugh opposed one, given that he had already [by both his and President Trumps count] undergone 6 previous investigations in respect of other federal service jobs he was going for without apparent fear.

2 Scoops

aloyisious wrote: »

The words used by Ms Keyser were that SHE wasn't at a party as described by Prof Ford. Mr Judge said in the letter from his lawyer, and in his own later signed letter, that he didn't see what was described by Prof Ford happen.

I'll make sure to individually quote the denials of the alleged incident in the future, sheesh. I don't see why semantics matter in this case, the bottom line is no witness cited backed up Ford's allegation.

listermint

mcmoustache wrote: »

I don't want to be backing up 2 scoops here but I'm pretty sure that those notes were provided under penalty of perjury.

Just to be clear here. And for scoopy aswell.

Read the contents of his statement. Read it again then read it one more time.

It means fk all because he has used language that ties him to nothing. The verbage used is legal and means fk all. He can easily turn around to the FBI and say I recalled now because you told me X why and z that jogged my recollection.

As I said my point still stands

Water John

She said she doesn't remember being at a party. She also adds, which is not conveniently incl, that she believes Dr Ford.
So the FBI will talk to schoolmates to get a feel of his character and type of actions. They will see does this corelate to the story he has given.

2 Scoops

listermint wrote: »

As I said my point still stands

In your mind at least.

2 Scoops

Water John wrote: »

She said she doesn't remember being at a party.

Please enlighten me, how is that important? Her friend said as far as she can remember she never interacted with Kavanaugh, at any time. I really don't get it. Her believing Ford is cordial but it means nothing.

listermint

2 Scoops wrote: »

In your mind at least.

No not at all.

Its all in his statement. It holds him to nothing.

Basically a big blob of wishy-washy nonsense.

Any or all of it can be retracted easily with little consequence based on the verbage.


Surely a man of your intellect can read that and agree.

mcmoustache

listermint wrote: »

Just to be clear here. And for scoopy aswell.

Read the contents of his statement. Read it again then read it one more time.

It means fk all because he has used language that ties him to nothing. The verbage used is legal and means fk all. He can easily turn around to the FBI and say I recalled now because you told me X why and z that jogged my recollection.

As I said my point still stands

Yeah, it's hard to prove that he did recall.

2 Scoops

listermint wrote: »

No not at all.

Its all in his statement. It holds him to nothing.

Basically a big blob of wishy-washy nonsense.

Any or all of it can be retracted easily with little consequence based on the verbage.


Surely a man of your intellect can read that and agree.

I'm not just talking about him but all the witnesses cited contradicted her accusation.

Perjury = the offence of wilfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oath.

I don't think it's meaningless. I've been very fair here, I never said she was lying and I never said I believe Kavanaugh, but apparently that's not enough.

Water John

It comes down to credibility. the FBI will speak to wide range of people who interacted with Kavanaugh, Judge and Ford. The notes of these discussions will paint a picture, from which any disparities will be apparent.

2 Scoops

Water John wrote: »

It comes down to credibility. the FBI will speak to wide range of people who interacted with Kavanaugh, Judge and Ford. The notes of these discussions will paint a picture, from which any disparities will be apparent.

Yup, let the chips fall where they may. Either way I'm fine with it.