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

SimonTemplar · 29-09-2018 1:57pm

derb12 wrote: »

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”.

One of the Democrat senators mentioned yesterday that Kavanagh's calendar entry for 1st July bears a lot of similarity with Dr. Ford's story.

After his speech, Grassley rebutted that the calendar entry had more than four people attending the party but Dr. Ford said there were only four people at the party she attended, so that was a different gathering.

This is a complete false recollection of her testimony. When asked about the number of people there by the prosecutor she said she remembers four but admitted there might have been others. The prosecutor then asked if it would be fair to say there were "at least four" people there and Dr. Ford agreed.

So anyone taking Grassley word as truth would immediately discount that 1st July entry as not being significant. I think it is very inappropriate for the committee chair to misrepresent witness testimony like that. It was probably an honest mistake on his part, but in his important position, he needs to get the facts right.

Panrich · 29-09-2018 2:03pm

MadYaker wrote: »

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?

If they find evidence that Kavanaugh misled the senate or lied in his testimony, that would also be enough to scupper him. Even a few inconsistencies might do it. They don't just have to find evidence of the assault

Water John · 29-09-2018 2:11pm

Panrich, I might qualify that by saying, it should be enough to scupper him.

Igotadose · 29-09-2018 3:06pm

I remember back during Watergate where Nixon offered to have Senator John Stennis listen to his tapes in order to prove Nixon hadn't done anything wrong.

One problem: Stennis was deaf.

I'm thinking this FBI investigation will be done by "the best people, top men" kind of like the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Or, maybe handpicked by Trump, though who knows, if in my fantasy he picks the worst FBI agents, maybe they'll turn out to be good as Trump's so awful at picking good people (cf: his cabinet, WH staff, Omarosa, ...)

Water John · 29-09-2018 3:15pm

The FBI is an independent agency. Staffing would be decided by Director Chris Wray.

Pelvis · 29-09-2018 3:19pm

robinph wrote: »

She named him to her husband around the same time as the therapy I thought, or at least said a potential supreme Court justice.

She named him in the therapy session to her husband, but the therapist didn't take note of the name.

Igotadose · 29-09-2018 3:23pm

Water John wrote: »

The FBI is an independent agency. Staffing would be decided by Director Chris Wray.

Oh, I know. Just humor me. Deep state, nudge nudge wink wink, just channeling my inner tGOP conspiracy-under-every-rock-can't-believe-them false persona. I mean, isn't the FBI out to get Trump so wouldn't anything they find on Kavanaugh be subject to a tweetstorm from the POTUS and his cult45 lapdogs?

Bigger concern is, what happens when it takes longer than a week? A week is no time. There are 3 known complainants and a bunch of witnesses to interview. Plus, Kavanaugh will need to be interviewed several times. Week is too short. Month seems reasonable, want to give Kavanaugh some time to rebut and all that.

aloyisious · 29-09-2018 3:56pm

Panrich wrote: »

If they find evidence that Kavanaugh misled the senate or lied in his testimony, that would also be enough to scupper him. Even a few inconsistencies might do it. They don't just have to find evidence of the assault

Re this investigation, should the FBI find something showing he lied to them in the past, that might/should affect his chances, given how other Don selectees are in deep **** for lying to the FBI. I looked at the wording used by Don [limited supplemental] when he gave the OK for this investigation and am left thinking it is merely a re-opening or extension of a previous investigation [and not a 7th] which mean's it has the chance that it will include going over ground and statements from at least one prior investigation.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted that Trump had ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update the judge's file. Trump's statement said, "As the Senate has requested, this UPDATE must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week.

Assumptions coming up: I'm assuming that - humans being human - Judge Kavanaugh [or his lawyer] may be tempted to get in touch with Mr Judge [or his lawyer] over the weekend to get their stories into line. The same might apply with Ms Keyser or her lawyer. I'm also assuming that the FBI should actually contact the known two other people allegedly in the party house at the time of the claimed assault by the judge on the Prof, unless the limited supplemental investigation has inhibiting instructions included for the agents. I'm assuming there is a chance that the FBI Director will have input in it and wonder if he will be spoken to by the AG or DAG to ensure he knows it must be a "thorough" investigation, given it's limitations. I'm assuming that the FBI director wont allow his agents to knowingly with-hold information or lie to the senate on what they find in this investigation, whatever his boss might desire.

If there was a refusal or claim of incomplete memory from the recovering illness witness [Mr Judge] on medical grounds to assist the investigation, it might stymie the investigation at the 1st hurdle.

Manic Moran · 29-09-2018 4:15pm

The stupid thing is that we are now exactly where we should have been a month ago with the FBI investigation, but now we have had a circus as well.

Rjd2 · 29-09-2018 4:47pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The stupid thing is that we are now exactly where we should have been a month ago with the FBI investigation, but now we have had a circus as well.

Do you think he will be confirmed? If not do you have any preference who would replace him?

Obviously I know it will be very hard to get anyone else through before the midterms.:o

Mahogany Gaspipe · 29-09-2018 4:52pm

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Because it popped up in my Twitter feed.

Ludo wrote: »

It is a fair reflection of his appearance yesterday...he was angry.

I am totally anti-trump and pretty strongly anti-republican in general but I must say I am torn over this whole thing. It is really a very tough situation all round but they do seem to finally have come to a sensible solution of a quick investigation. Even Trump is being pretty sensible about it so far (there's a thing I never thought I'd say).

As for Kavanaugh...I understand his anger yesterday and have no issue at all with that. If I was accused like that and innocent, I would probably react the same. On the other hand, he DID lie yesterday also repeatedly. Flatulence my arse!!! Drinking game? I don't think so.
I honestly don't know though if he is actually guilty of something or just liked to party (which is fine). It is a no-brainer to investigate or at least just ask the only other person who was (possibly) there.

To sum up....Lindsey Graham and Grassley are dicks. Booker and Harris are dicks. Flake seems to have character and hopefully, he sticks to his guns and gets backup.

Do either of you have any idea of the context of that particular moment?

Do you understand why those women in the audience have that upset look on their faces?

SimonTemplar · 29-09-2018 5:27pm

Mahogany Gaspipe wrote: »

Do either of you have any idea of the context of that particular moment?

Do you understand why those women in the audience have that upset look on their faces?

I posted the picture with no reference to the women or the picture's context. I simply said, "quite a photo", which it is.

looksee · 29-09-2018 6:14pm

In what sense 'quite a photo'? Its a man and a group of seated women, all looking somewhat put out. If you do not consider the context then its really rather a pointless photo.

splashuum · 29-09-2018 6:28pm

Its looking likely that Brett will be confirmed. This will be a win for humanity if true

.

mcmoustache · 29-09-2018 6:48pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The stupid thing is that we are now exactly where we should have been a month ago with the FBI investigation, but now we have had a circus as well.

Even worse is that this whole circus could have been avoided by putting a regular pro-gun, anti abortion conservative type in there who didn't have the baggage. Rjd has made this point before and I'm in full agreement. Remember that Gorsuch went through the process without any fratboy, rapey stuff coming out or him lying to the senate about that triangle stuff and boofing. Surely it can't be that hard to find a conservative judge without a lot of skeletons in his closet?

vetinari · 29-09-2018 7:10pm

Kavannaugh went full Trump mode for the hearing.
As someone else mentioned, it was a classic example of male privilege.
There's no way a female candidate could have acted in the same way.

His hearing should by rights be disqualifying.
A supreme court nominee should be expected to hold their composure under pressure.
He got very angry and deflected multiple questions.

Captain Obvious · 29-09-2018 7:24pm

vetinari wrote: »

Kavannaugh went full Trump mode for the hearing.
As someone else mentioned, it was a classic example of male privilege.
There's no way a female candidate could have acted in the same way.

His hearing should by rights be disqualifying.
A supreme court nominee should be expected to hold their composure under pressure.
He got very angry and deflected multiple questions.

Can you imagine if a case ever comes before him dealing with historical abuse or statute of limitations?

listermint · 29-09-2018 7:25pm

So Lindsey Graham is under investigation for campaign financing with ties to Russian money.

https://twitter.com/funder/status/1045765798688641024?s=20

Couldn't happen to a nicer charlatan

Headshot · 29-09-2018 7:44pm

listermint wrote: »

So Lindsey Graham is under investigation for campaign financing with ties to Russian money.

https://twitter.com/funder/status/1045765798688641024?s=20

Couldn't happen to a nicer charlatan

Made my weekend

Chuffed

Captain Obvious · 29-09-2018 7:46pm

Investigation by who?

Interesting comment under that tweet I didn't know.

On the oct. docket is Gamble vs US No 17-646. If voted by 4 other conservative judges and him the president can pardon federal crimes and states can’t take to trial.

Explains why Trump so desperate to get him through.

2 Scoops · 29-09-2018 8:38pm

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Can you imagine if a case ever comes before him dealing with historical abuse or statute of limitations?

If I accused you in public of being a gang rapist, would you get mad?

If he was quiet and portrayed no emotion he'd be accused of being cold, callous and emotionless like a sociopath.

Either way he can't win.

listermint · 29-09-2018 8:41pm

[

2 Scoops wrote: »

If I accused you in public of being a gang rapist, would you get mad?

If he was quiet and portrayed no emotion he'd be accused of being cold, callous and emotionless like a sociopath.

Either way he can't win.

He can't win because he's excuse the language. Been caught by the bollix.

It will all come out next week.

And the Russian money pouring into gop senators pockets shows all we need to know about the big horah they are causing over this.

Follow the money always follow the money.

2 Scoops · 29-09-2018 8:43pm

listermint wrote: »

2 Scoops wrote: »

If I accused you in public of being a gang rapist, would you get mad?

If he was quiet and portrayed no emotion he'd be accused of being cold, callous and emotionless like a sociopath.

Either way he can't win.[/quote/]

He can't win because he's excuse the language. Been caught by the bollix.

It will all come out next week.

And the Russian money pouring into gop senators pockets shows all we need to know about the big horah they are causing over this.

Follow the money always follow the money.

Hysterical hyper partisan nonsense.

listermint · 29-09-2018 8:44pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Hysterical hyper partisan nonsense.

Which part ?

The Russian money in good coffers it's well documented.

They will get their just returns.

Any buzzwords you want to respond with without acknowledging the discussion points again?

2 Scoops · 29-09-2018 8:47pm

listermint wrote: »

Which part ?

The Russian money in good coffers it's well documented.

They will get their just returns.

Any buzzwords you want to respond with without acknowledging the discussion points again?

Look at what I wrote then look at your reply.

listermint · 29-09-2018 8:48pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Look at what I wrote then look at your reply.

You used buzzwords without commenting on the content.

Manic Moran · 29-09-2018 9:00pm

Rjd2 wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

The stupid thing is that we are now exactly where we should have been a month ago with the FBI investigation, but now we have had a circus as well.

Do you think he will be confirmed? If not do you have any preference who would replace him?

Obviously I know it will be very hard to get anyone else through before the midterms.:o

No idea. I suspect it will depend a bit on what the FBI has to say on the matter.
And, no, I do not. As long as the judge is well qualified, I’m happy enough. I’m old-school that way.

Sweetemotion · 29-09-2018 9:03pm

listermint wrote: »

So Lindsey Graham is under investigation for campaign financing with ties to Russian money.

https://twitter.com/funder/status/1045765798688641024?s=20

Couldn't happen to a nicer charlatan

Under investigation from the FBI or under investigation from The Demcoalition?

listermint · 29-09-2018 9:03pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

No idea. I suspect it will depend a bit on what the FBI has to say on the matter.
And, no, I do not. As long as the judge is well qualified, I’m happy enough. I’m old-school that way.

Being qualified doesn't mean you should sit in a court.

Being old school doesn't mean you should drop minimum standards of being ethical not partisan as prerequisite for the job. Tbh.

Qualification doesn't cover the above it merely means they have the background and legal skills to make decisions on cases. But supreme court requires a bit more than that... The secret is in the title.

listermint · 29-09-2018 9:17pm

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Under investigation from the FBI or under investigation from The Demcoalition?

Appears to be independent presently.

For Forks Sake · 29-09-2018 9:24pm

listermint wrote: »

So Lindsey Graham is under investigation for campaign financing with ties to Russian money.

https://twitter.com/funder/status/1045765798688641024?s=20

Couldn't happen to a nicer charlatan

Please God/Allah/Ganesh/Satan/Flying Spaghetti Monster let there be some truth to this...

pixelburp · 29-09-2018 9:36pm

So apparently the FBI are only interviewing from a list of names given by the White House, which will not include the third accuser Swetnick (currently represented by Avenetti). A week never seemed a credible length of time to investigate to begin with, but with the WH dictating the scope, hard to see anything beyond a hasty whitewash in all this, and poltically convenient "yeah he seems fine".

vetinari · 29-09-2018 9:38pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

If I accused you in public of being a gang rapist, would you get mad?

If he was quiet and portrayed no emotion he'd be accused of being cold, callous and emotionless like a sociopath.

Either way he can't win.

In the moment maybe,
10 days later, I'd expect a Supreme Court Justice nominee to have gathered his / her thoughts and be in control of his / her emotions.
Tbh, I'd regard what happened at the hearing as a "performance" by Kavannaugh. Doesn't mean he's innocent or guilt, just that he thought for some reason this would play well.

Rjd2 · 29-09-2018 9:46pm

listermint wrote: »

Appears to be independent presently.

He is an absolute grifter that guy, I'd have him on the same level as the Krassensteins and Candance Owens when it comes to credibility. Unsurprisingly asking for money non stop to investigate. :rolleyes:

If the Graham Russia link is there, it will be discovered by actual creditable Journos as the future. And nope not saying it won't be exposed if so in case anyone wants to bump this if confirmed.

Some reading on the wonderful Scott below.

https://splinternews.com/meet-the-anti-trump-scam-pac-getting-rich-off-the-resis-1822798967

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cash-for-coalition-against-trump-going-into-consultants-pockets-instead

2 Scoops · 29-09-2018 9:50pm

vetinari wrote: »

In the moment maybe,
10 days later, I'd expect a Supreme Court Justice nominee to have gathered his / her thoughts and be in control of his / her emotions.
Tbh, I'd regard what happened at the hearing as a "performance" by Kavannaugh. Doesn't mean he's innocent or guilt, just that he thought for some reason this would play well.

Fair enough, thank you for the decent response.

I think I wouldn't be able to hold it in when Senators like Feinstein ( who many blame for this mess ) were treating the gang rapist claims by Avenetti as credible and asking him about it.

aloyisious · 29-09-2018 10:09pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

If I accused you in public of being a gang rapist, would you get mad?

If he was quiet and portrayed no emotion he'd be accused of being cold, callous and emotionless like a sociopath.

Either way he can't win.

It's worth considering he's a judge and did have knowledge of how to portray one-self when under interview, esp in a court-room type setting. When he sat down in the committee room, my first thought was: where is his lawyer? Having one there would NOT indicate one is suspect or guilty. Prof Ford had one with her. Common-sense would have advised him to have one with him.

He should have had one to act as his mouthpiece as it would have avoided him losing his cool with the senators. I believe he didn't have one there as he would have been advised on his response which would have inhibited him when he chose to argue and vent in the showman way he did. He, IMO, was doing what Don had suggested to him, via the media, days earlier and go on the attack.

His opening address description of himself as a mass-attending catholic virgin schoolboy was more than slightly amazing given how his schoolmates and friends described him as having a drink digestion problem. I couldn't buy into his description of his not being an average red-blooded all-American late teenage schoolboy, esp after it came to his calendar listing of boofing etc. It was an over-the-top performance.

elli21 · 29-09-2018 10:10pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

If I accused you in public of being a gang rapist, would you get mad?

If he was quiet and portrayed no emotion he'd be accused of being cold, callous and emotionless like a sociopath.

Either way he can't win.

For me personally he could have won......when he went all alex jones and conspiracies and telling this group of octagariens that he couldn't recall that night instead of aflat denial..

I have to say to some who are willing to overlook this,

Shoe on the other foot ...would you tell those who were aboused here in Ireland...grand we will check into it ...but only for seven day's?

everlast75 · 29-09-2018 10:11pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Fair enough, thank you for the decent response.

I think I wouldn't be able to hold it in when Senators like Feinstein ( who many blame for this mess ) were treating the gang rapist claims by Avenetti as credible and asking him about it.

*sigh*

"Many" people don't find her responsible. Republicans do.

"Avenatti" was not making the claims; his client was.

And its not up to you to determine whether the claim is credible or not. Now... if only there were a bunch of professionals who could determine that very fact.

2 Scoops · 29-09-2018 10:15pm

everlast75 wrote: »

*sigh*

"Many" people don't find her responsible. Republicans do.

"Avenatti" was not making the claims; his client was.

And its not up to you to determine whether the claim is credible or not. Now... if only there were a bunch of professionals who could determine that very fact.

My opinion is that her claims are not credible, and the NYT's stance on it leads me to believe they agree. My opinion is that Avenatti exploits vulnerable people for power and money. We're allowed to give our own opinions right, or is it only the ones which you agree with?

everlast75 · 29-09-2018 10:21pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

My opinion is that her claims are not credible, and the NYT's stance on it leads me to believe they agree. My opinion is that Avenatti exploits vulnerable people for power and money. We're allowed to give our own opinions right, or is it only the ones which you agree with?

So you accept its not Avenatti's claim then? Good stuff.

Your view on the validity of the claim, or mine, is irrelevant. The FBI should be the ones to make that call. Do you accept that?

Ask stormy Daniels how she is doing since he started representing her? She doesn't seem exploited to me.

2 Scoops · 29-09-2018 10:24pm

everlast75 wrote: »

So you accept its not Avenatti's claim then? Good stuff.

Your view on the validity of the claim, or mine, is irrelevant. The FBI should be the ones to make that call. Do you accept that?

Ask stormy Daniels how she is doing since he started representing her? She doesn't seem exploited to me.

Nope. FBI don't draw conclusions or give recommendations, ignoring James Comey.

aloyisious · 29-09-2018 10:25pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

My opinion is that her claims are not credible, and the NYT's stance on it leads me to believe they agree. My opinion is that Avenatti exploits vulnerable people for power and money. We're allowed to give our own opinions right, or is it only the ones which you agree with?

Just as a matter of interest, do you totally buy into the judge's self-description of himself as in his opening address as a holier-than-thou mass-going catholic schoolboy working all hours and just having a beer when his own calendar and his schoolfriends described him as boofing and having a drink-digestive problem which gave him aggressive inclinations or do you have a sceptical view of him as per doubting what people say?

2 Scoops · 29-09-2018 10:29pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, do you totally buy into the judge's self-description of himself as in his opening address as a holier-than-thou mass-going catholic schoolboy working all hours and just having a beer when his own calendar and his schoolfriends described him as boofing and having a drink-digestive problem which gave him aggressive inclinations or do you have a sceptical view of him as per doubting what people say?

Nope, I don't but that doesn't make him a rapist. I don't find Ford's story credible.

Honest question, do you know if Kavanaugh was named in Ford's therapist sessions? I've seen it written he wasn't but I don't know if that's true or not. It's an important point because that's the only collaboration she's been able to provide.

In the hearing she was asked if she gave them to the Washington post which would have been about 8 weeks ago but she said she couldn't remember.

everlast75 · 29-09-2018 10:31pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Nope. FBI don't draw conclusions or give recommendations, ignoring James Comey.

You get the point I'm making.

Semantics aside, the FBI should investigate, find the facts and present them.

"You" don't want the the 3rd claim to be investigated because "you" don't like Avenatti and "you" don't think her claim is credible.

It's nothing to do with the facts.

You should just come out and say that.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp · 29-09-2018 10:39pm

So you must believe Kavanaugh lied under oath?

2 Scoops wrote: »

Nope, I don't but that doesn't make him a rapist. I don't find Ford's story credible.
...

elli21 · 29-09-2018 10:44pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Nope, I don't but that doesn't make him a rapist. I don't find Ford's story credible.

Honest question, do you know if Kavanaugh was named in Ford's therapist sessions? I've seen it written he wasn't but I don't know if that's true or not. It's an important point because that's the only collaboration she's been able to provide.

In the hearing she was asked if she gave them to the Washington post which would have been about 8 weeks ago but she said she couldn't remember.

As far as I can make out Prof Ford never called him a rapist.She talked about judge and Kavanugh...I think she was very honest in saying she was not sure who at the age of fifteen pushed her into that room because she could not see behind her...You know yourself the devil is in the detail...prof Ford gave detail...Kavanugh gave us conspirateies and tales of how his kid's cried over their night prayers.

2 Scoops · 29-09-2018 10:45pm

everlast75 wrote: »

You get the point I'm making.

Semantics aside, the FBI should investigate, find the facts and present them.

"You" don't want the the 3rd claim to be investigated because "you" don't like Avenatti and "you" don't think her claim is credible.

It's nothing to do with the facts.

You should just come out and say that.

It has everything to do with facts, and there's none to back up any of the claims. There isn't even a inkling of collaboration to suggest any of the accusations are true, in fact those named directly contradict the accusations. The people interviewed and who provided written statements are already under penalty of perjury.

I'm fine with the FBI investigating as I've previously said. I don't think it will change anything ( That's my opinion ).

2 Scoops · 29-09-2018 10:51pm

elli21 wrote: »

As far as I can make out Prof Ford never called him a rapist.She talked about judge and Kavanugh...I think she was very honest in saying she was not sure who at the age of fifteen pushed her into that room because she could not see behind her...You know yourself the devil is in the detail...prof Ford gave detail...Kavanugh gave us conspirateies and tales of how his kid's cried over their night prayers.

What details did she give exactly? All she did was mask her accusation in even more ambiguity by saying she can't remember who drove her to the party and who drove her home. She can't remember the location, she can't remember the date, she can't remember who drove her 6+ miles there and 6+ miles back. The people she claimed were there all say they have no recollection of the party, her lifelong friend said she has no recollection of ever meeting Kavanaugh. She can't remember if she provided her Therapy notes to the WaPo 8 weeks ago. What can she remember exactly?

At least Kavanaugh provided a calendar of his general whereabouts during that summer, accurate or not, it's far more evidence than Ford has provided.

aloyisious · 29-09-2018 10:53pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Nope, I don't but that doesn't make him a rapist. I don't find Ford's story credible.

Honest question, do you know if Kavanaugh was named in Ford's therapist sessions? I've seen it written he wasn't but I don't know if that's true or not. It's an important point because that's the only collaboration she's been able to provide.

In the hearing she was asked if she gave them to the Washington post which would have been about 8 weeks ago but she said she couldn't remember.

Prof Ford did not accuse him of rape. According to what's been written and publicized, she didn't tell her therapist but until both of them decide to release any client privileged medical history documents we won't know. The Prof is said to have told her parents so, if that's true, that could be said to be corroborative evidence.

As for any info she might have given the W/P. I have no idea. The W/P has a pay-for-view firewall. If she replied to the committee on whether she supplied the W/P with any of her personal medical history info, I reckon her reply would be available there for the curious. I reckon the media would also have reported on that as it may probably have broken any journalistic-source privacy agreement she might have made with any W/P journalist/s she might have been in contact with.

Just as a matter of interest, where did the milage distance [6+ miles to/from] the alleged party house come from. if she didn't know where that house is?

everlast75 · 29-09-2018 10:56pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

It has everything to do with facts, and there's none to back up any of the claims. There isn't even a inkling of collaboration to suggest any of the accusations are true, in fact those named directly contradict the accusations. The people interviewed and who provided written statements are already under penalty of perjury.

I'm fine with the FBI investigating as I've previously said. I don't think it will change anything ( That's my opinion ).

You're saying there are no facts to back up the claim, and have formed that view without the claim being investigated. If you can't see the lack of sense in that statement i can't help you.

You're fine with the FBI investigating. On that we can agree. However, that's not what you were insinuating earlier.

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

Comments