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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1…100101103105106…194

Comments

  • #5102
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭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.


  • #5103
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭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.


  • #5104
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭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.


  • #5105
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭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.


  • #5106
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭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...


  • Advertisement
  • #5107
    SimonTemplar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭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.


  • #5108
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭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.


  • #5109
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,177 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #5110
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭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.


  • #5111
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #5112
    Rjd2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,195 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #5113
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    Official now;

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


  • #5114
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,177 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • #5115
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭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.


  • #5116
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,808 ✭✭✭✭Water John


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


  • #5117
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,177 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #5118
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭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.


  • #5119
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭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


  • #5120
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭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.


  • #5121
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,338 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #5122
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭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.


  • #5123
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,177 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #5124
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,808 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #5125
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    listermint wrote: »

    As I said my point still stands


    In your mind at least. :)


  • #5126
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭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.


  • #5127
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,177 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #5128
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭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.


  • #5129
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭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.


  • #5130
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,808 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #5131
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭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.


  • #5132
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,338 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    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.

    Don't bother, the statements, letters and the wordings used on record are there for all to see. If you think they are just semantics, I don't think the prof, the judge, Mr Judge and Ms Keyser would agree with your evaluation.


  • #5133
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    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.


    I didn't see Kavanaugh at the party either though. Or at least, I don't remember seeing him there.


  • #5134
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    I didn't see Kavanaugh at the party either though. Or at least, I don't remember seeing him there.

    This angle just goes way over my head. I'll try play along, who cited you as a witness?


  • #5135
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Don't bother, the statements, letters and the wordings used on record are there for all to see. If you think they are just semantics, I don't think the prof, the judge, Mr Judge and Ms Keyser would agree with your evaluation.

    An easier way to ask it, which of the four collaborated her story?

    Nobody did. Nobody who drove her to the party, or drove her home. She doesn't know the location, she doesn't know the date.

    She remembers she had one beer though.


  • #5136
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    I don't care what the media says.

    Proof is on the accuser, simple as. If life has thought me anything it's that people are disingenuous when stakes or money are high. Not saying that applies to Ms Ford - just in general. Until there's proof I'll question everything.


  • Advertisement
  • #5137
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    This angle just goes way over my head. I'll try play along, who cited you as a witness?


    I don't recall.


  • #5138
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    I don't recall.

    I don't get that either, I can spring it the other way saying there's no intent or whatever when there was mountains of evidence. I'm not your enemy man, I just disagree with you on certain points.


  • #5139
    mattser
    Registered Users Posts: 2,302 ✭✭✭mattser


    Thank you big black horse for unbanning me, and welcoming me back to the thread.
    Kavanaugh case is very interesting.


  • #5140
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,494 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Submitting a statement is not the same as being questioned by the FBI. If it was, Judge and Kavanaugh would not have had a problem with it.

    Right there is your proof of there being a difference.

    Probative questions can be asked, details picked up on, those details can be checked out. Specifics matter. The FBI are experts in dealing with cold cases. I would be calling for an investigation if I believed I was the victim of a case of mistaken identity.

    There is of course one possibility that i haven't seen mentioned here and that's Kavanaugh wanted the FBI to get involved but the Reps told him they would get him through without one and if one was launched, his nomination would be delayed.


  • #5141
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,338 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    everlast75 wrote: »
    Submitting a statement is not the same as being questioned by the FBI. If it was, Judge and Kavanaugh would not have had a problem with it.

    Right there is your proof of there being a difference.

    Probative questions can be asked, details picked up on, those details can be checked out. Specifics matter. The FBI are experts in dealing with cold cases. I would be calling for an investigation if I believed I was the victim of a case of mistaken identity.

    There is of course one possibility that i haven't seen mentioned here and that's Kavanaugh wanted the FBI to get involved but the Reps told him they would get him through without one and if one was launched, his nomination would be delayed.

    I'm amused at the way the GOP are going for broke, pushing forward with him to the floor of the senate while the FBI are getting ready to investigate him. That's hedging their bet; if things turn up bad for him "well, we did do as we were asked" and if not "well, we told you he is an OK guy and it was all a con". I can imagine the "oh ****" looks on JS's and RR's faces at Justice when they heard the news: you can deliver the report, cos I'm not! Imagine Mr Judge's face and mind if he was looking at Jeff Flake in the committee room yesterday.


  • Advertisement
  • #5142
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    If it comes up bad, I imagine Donald will smear the investigation...


  • #5143
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,747 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    batgoat wrote: »
    If it comes up bad, I imagine Donald will smear the investigation...

    He will revert to form and say the FBI are corrupt.


  • #5144
    derb12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 502 ✭✭✭derb12


    Two different people with just a passing interest in this stuff said to me yesterday something along the lines of “isn’t this Kavanaugh thing ridiculous, why are they wasting time on this accusation when even her four supposed witnesses deny that it ever happened”. It’s so easy to dismiss it all with simplistic narrative that the slightly more nuanced truth of “they don’t recall the incident” and by her account, they’d have no reason to recall it. The only people who say it didn’t happen are the 2 accused perpetrators, Kavanaugh under oath and judge in a statement made by his lawyers. Kavanaugh himself stated this falsehood in his testimony,
    The key point which I’d like to see made is this: how can you ha s a justice of the Supreme Court who mixes up “I don’t remember the incident” with “the incident didn’t happen”.


  • #5145
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    I think that is a symptom of people passively optimising their news consumption to bite sized chunks. I had a conversation during the week where I discovered even the minimal amount if news I consume by reading more than a headline and para 1 resulted in a response of How do You Know all this? And I am not anywhere near as informed as I used to be as I just don't have time. So at the back of my head I have wondered how you address this - basically media literacy. Not just to avoid fake news but to be able to analyse and see grey areas. Given how state education (uk) and public schooling (us) have been messed around over years, which disproportionately affects the less well off, I sometimes wonder if the creation of a less tooled up class with poorer analytical tools was deliberate.

    That being said, Kavanaugh's behaviour at his hearing the other day would have had him ruled out immediately if he were female. Not professional. Included inaccuracies to a Senate committee. Hysterical, harpy. People are constantly telling rape victims how how they should or should have responded. I reckon he should have stayed calm, answered the questions clearly, concisely and without obfuscation. Very easy to do that when the truth is on your side, in my experience.


  • #5146
    MadYaker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,290 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    What prompted Trump to order an investigation? Did senators from the committee threaten to not vote Kanaugh through?


  • #5147
    Rhineshark
    Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭Rhineshark


    MadYaker wrote: »
    What prompted Trump to order an investigation? Did senators from the committee threaten to not vote Kanaugh through?

    Basically, yes. Jeff Flake made his vote contingent in putting off the floor vote for a week for an FBI investigation and other swing votes - Murkowski, Collins, Manchin (potential Dem swing) backed him.

    Trump reckons the investigation must be short and limited in scope but these things are not easily rebottled once opened so we'll see.

    Investigation according to Senate is one week, limited to current credible claims.


  • #5148
    MadYaker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,290 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    I think it’ll be inconclusive, Flake and co will consider their asses covered and will vote him in anyway. How much can the FBI really find out about an alleged sexual assault 30 odd years ago where all parties involved seem a bit flakey on details?

    Did she name Kavanaugh in 2012 when she told a thereapist?


  • #5149
    humberklog
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,629 Mod ✭✭✭✭humberklog


    MadYaker wrote: »

    Did she name Kavanaugh in 2012 when she told a thereapist?

    No.


  • #5150
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,808 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    She named him before he became the nominee.


  • #5151
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,142 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Water John wrote: »
    She named him before he became the nominee.
    She named him to her husband around the same time as the therapy I thought, or at least said a potential supreme Court justice.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement