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

amandstu · 03-10-2018 1:12pm

What are the terms of this investigation? Do they have a free hand within certain parameters?

Call Me Jimmy · 03-10-2018 1:29pm

everlast75 wrote: »

I suspect Trump supporters in general will not answer that one question, because either the answer is "yes", which shows them to be either lying or gullible beyond reasoning, or "no" in which case they are tied into an argument that to lie under oath is no big deal, or that there are varying degrees.

In essence, your question is to the very heart of the matter, and so their answer to it is... they don't care.

Not a trump supporter but I'll answer that because I DON'T believe any of the victim's accounts based on the evidence so far (including the anonymous ones, the one that was categorically denied by the 'victim', Brett's ex girlfriend.

If he is proved to have been lying under oath about Devil's triangle I am conflicted because it it is in the context of multiple irresponsibly reported false accusations (the one's I mentioned above), and other potentially false allegations. I wonder are these exceptional circumstances where such lies (I'd have to hear people in Kavanaugh's friend circle confirm the meanings at the time to say they were lies). But if we are in a position where the allegations have no real evidence or corroboration I think it's dangerous for him not to be confirmed.

It seems even the democrats steered well away from the Swetnick one (which I was scolded for victim blaming about), surely the most horrendous and impactful crime with many victims couldn't just fizzle out without so much as a whimper from the party? Surely that's has the most promising leads. A lot of stuff has come about brett kavanaugh's drinking from people who knew him, and yet nothing about spiking the punch, a culture of gang rapes? That accusation is just off in my mind and I'd make allowances for how he may have been less than perfectly poised. Swetnick said she witness efforts by Brett Kavanaugh to spike the punch with the goal of raping women. Then in her first interview she says she did not, she saw him 'near the punch'.

As I said when I heard it, this should be very quick there are so many witnesses victims and perpetrators that it is nearly impossible nothing will come out to corroborate this. Even a girl at a party with Brett kavanaugh saying she felt like her punch was spiked, anything.

Alas, it will fizzle out and we will all kind of forget this one even though its the most heinous accusation. And since the media are reporting everything, anonymous accusations, ice throwing etc. it's strange I haven't seen much about the letter from 2 guys claiming they might be ones Ramirez is referring to.

So in that context, yes lying under oath is something that could disqualify him if proven, but I really hope there is some truth to one of these accusations that has a shred of evidence / corroboration otherwise I can't think of a worse precedent for american politics.

borderlinemeath · 03-10-2018 1:34pm

Ford had nothing to gain by coming forward. And a lot to lose. Her anonymity, her personal security, and that of her family.
Kavanaugh may not get a promotion because his past came back to haunt him. Whether he did it or not, his demeanour and blatantly obvious lies while under oath show he isn't fit for the job in the first place. The whole "fraternity" crap in the states and how they behave, their abuse of others through "hazing" and their behaviour towards others and the code of omerta that they rule by show just how depraved their behaviour can be. There's not a chance a virginal choirboy that he portrayed himself to be would have existed, even back then.

oscarBravo · 03-10-2018 1:43pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

If he is proved to have been lying under oath about Devil's triangle I am conflicted because...

Nope. Nope nope nope.

You don't get to be conflicted about a candidate for the United States Supreme Court lying under oath. If he lied at his hearing, he's unsuitable for the office.

It wouldn't be the only reason he's unsuitable, in my view - his unhinged partisan rant would be another - but that's a matter of opinion, whereas perjury is a matter of fact.

That's why I want Trump supporters to answer the question: do they believe that every word he said was true?

FreudianSlippers · 03-10-2018 1:47pm

Rhineshark wrote: »

Actually, her account is corroborated. Corroboration does not mean proof even under American law.

Not that I disagree with the substance of your post, but I should point out that the rules of evidence applicable to courts in the US (and understanding that these rules are different State to State) do not apply to a confirmation hearing.

splashuum · 03-10-2018 1:55pm

everlast75 wrote: »

the simplest solution here would be to give him Texas or somewhere like that, have all his supporters join him there and watch as he sinks that economy too

What economy has he sank? The US economy is at its best in decades.

Inquitus · 03-10-2018 1:58pm

splashuum wrote: »

What economy has he sank? The US economy is at its best in decades.

Stoking the economy by raising the deficit has to be paid for at some point! The Stock Market is up due to companies re-investing the tax dividend in share buybacks!

James Brown · 03-10-2018 1:58pm

The President of the United States should not be commenting on ongoing investigations, let alone making light of sexual assault allegations. The fact that this is a reality is so bizarre, yet common place, is a sign how much garbage both the White house and Republican 'ethics' are wallowing in. The only good thing to come out of Trump as President is it shows the Republican GOP for the liars and hypocrites they are. All the Christian values and God talk is just sales speak.

pixelburp · 03-10-2018 2:02pm

splashuum wrote: »

What economy has he sank? The US economy is at its best in decades.

Do you think that magically happened in the < 2 years he has been in office? Be serious for a second. I don't pretend to be an economics expert but let's not ignore how it took 10 years for Ireland's economy to recover from the 2008 crash -and many would say we're nowhere near that recovery yet & just hobbling along.

The US is no different.

Like Trump all you want, but don't fall for the usual politicians trick of taking credit for something that happened before their time. The economy was heading upwards under the last fella, and as mentioned Trump's spiking of the deficit is going to cause problems.

rossie1977 · 03-10-2018 2:12pm

Exactly. The Dow hit record highs and unemployment was low first 6 years of George Bush Jrs tenure. Then it all came tumbling down like a house of cards.

Another interesting tidbit. Remember when Obama was always questioned over how many people were actually in work and Trump ran on the talking point that 95 million Americans were out of work. Funny we never hear anything about Labour force participation rates these days..

C_Data_Users_Def_Apps_App_Data_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved_Images.png

C_Data_Users_Def_Apps_App_Data_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved_Images.png

everlast75 · 03-10-2018 2:23pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Not a trump supporter but I'll answer that because I DON'T believe any of the victim's accounts based on the evidence so far (including the anonymous ones, the one that was categorically denied by the 'victim', Brett's ex girlfriend.

If he is proved to have been lying under oath about Devil's triangle I am conflicted because it it is in the context of multiple irresponsibly reported false accusations (the one's I mentioned above), and other potentially false allegations. I wonder are these exceptional circumstances where such lies (I'd have to hear people in Kavanaugh's friend circle confirm the meanings at the time to say they were lies). But if we are in a position where the allegations have no real evidence or corroboration I think it's dangerous for him not to be confirmed.

It seems even the democrats steered well away from the Swetnick one (which I was scolded for victim blaming about), surely the most horrendous and impactful crime with many victims couldn't just fizzle out without so much as a whimper from the party? Surely that's has the most promising leads. A lot of stuff has come about brett kavanaugh's drinking from people who knew him, and yet nothing about spiking the punch, a culture of gang rapes? That accusation is just off in my mind and I'd make allowances for how he may have been less than perfectly poised. Swetnick said she witness efforts by Brett Kavanaugh to spike the punch with the goal of raping women. Then in her first interview she says she did not, she saw him 'near the punch'.

As I said when I heard it, this should be very quick there are so many witnesses victims and perpetrators that it is nearly impossible nothing will come out to corroborate this. Even a girl at a party with Brett kavanaugh saying she felt like her punch was spiked, anything.

Alas, it will fizzle out and we will all kind of forget this one even though its the most heinous accusation. And since the media are reporting everything, anonymous accusations, ice throwing etc. it's strange I haven't seen much about the letter from 2 guys claiming they might be ones Ramirez is referring to.

So in that context, yes lying under oath is something that could disqualify him if proven, but I really hope there is some truth to one of these accusations that has a shred of evidence / corroboration otherwise I can't think of a worse precedent for american politics.

Okay.

If the devil's triangle bit makes you conflicted, how about proof that he is Bart (re Judge's book) and that he lied multiple times re drinking?

How do you feel now?

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1047256166550712321?s=19

RIGOLO · 03-10-2018 2:44pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

Exactly. The Dow hit record highs and unemployment was low first 6 years of George Bush Jrs tenure. Then it all came tumbling down like a house of cards.

Another interesting tidbit. Remember when Obama was always questioned over how many people were actually in work and Trump ran on the talking point that 95 million Americans were out of work. Funny we never hear anything about Labour force participation rates these days..

Given that rate (Unemployment Participation Rate) was already in a steep decline under Bush, does this mean you give credit to Bush for getting it on a step decline.
I wonder why you didnt extend that chart back to 2001 and show the trend started under Bush. Around here it seems everything is the legacy of the predecessor.

And like all economic data , looking at one number in isolation is lazy. The unemployment participation rate should be taken in tandem with the actual unemployment numbers which are under 4% , the two in tandem tell the full story.

As to why the media arent reporting on it, I guess you have to ask them.
The main stream media control the agenda as driven by their audience.
If their audience is more interested in 'ice cubes thrown in a bar, and porn star lawyers' than the unemployment particapation rate then that will set the agenda for what they put on the front page.

In this day and age.. you get what you click on...

Be all means theres plenty economics that could be discussed , for instance
Does anyone know when it becomes Trumps economy. Its nearly 650 days into his administration, numerous changes being made but for some reason lots of posters still say its still Obamas economy. At some point do the anti-Trumpers accept its now his economy, or is it going to be Obamas economy right up to the election in 2020.

Come what may it would border on the ridiculous , if in 2019, people are still posting its Obamas economy.

Christy42 · 03-10-2018 3:03pm

RIGOLO wrote: »

rossie1977 wrote: »

Exactly. The Dow hit record highs and unemployment was low first 6 years of George Bush Jrs tenure. Then it all came tumbling down like a house of cards.

Another interesting tidbit. Remember when Obama was always questioned over how many people were actually in work and Trump ran on the talking point that 95 million Americans were out of work. Funny we never hear anything about Labour force participation rates these days..

Given that rate (Unemployment Participation Rate) was already in a steep decline under Bush, does this mean you give credit to Bush for getting it on a step decline.
I wonder why you didnt extend that chart back to 2001 and show the trend started under Bush. Around here it seems everything is the legacy of the predecessor.

And like all economic data , looking at one number in isolation is lazy. The unemployment participation rate should be taken in tandem with the actual unemployment numbers which are under 4% , the two in tandem tell the full story.

As to why the media arent reporting on it, I guess you have to ask them.
The main stream media control the agenda as driven by their audience.
If their audience is more interested in 'ice cubes thrown in a bar, and porn star lawyers' than the unemployment particapation rate then that will set the agenda for what they put on the front page.

In this day and age.. you get what you click on...

Be all means theres plenty economics that could be discussed , for instance
Does anyone know when it becomes Trumps economy. Its nearly 650 days into his administration, numerous changes being made but for some reason lots of posters still say its still Obamas economy. At some point do the anti-Trumpers accept its now his economy, or is it going to be Obamas economy right up to the election in 2020.

Come what may it would border on the ridiculous , if in 2019, people are still posting its Obamas economy.

Trump was the one interested in the "real" unemployment rate. The media was never really discussing it (except right wing sites). He stopped as soon as he got into office which is the point the previous poster was making. Why did he stop talking about it? What is it now? Is it still 42% as he claimed on the campaign trail?https://www.google.ie/search?q=trump+40+unemployment&oq=trump+40%+un&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l2.6623j0j7&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

He kept on the real unemployment rate and suddenly went quiet about. Can you explain why?

I don't know why you are disparaging a lawyer for being a porn stars lawyer. Surely it is better than a porn stars consort like the current president?

Gbear · 03-10-2018 3:11pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's why I want Trump supporters to answer the question: do they believe that every word he said was true?

That might be a question, but it's not the question. Something can be untrue without there having been a lie told.

The question is rather: did he knowingly say something that wasn't true?

1. Are his claims true?

2. Is it credible that he thought that they were true.

Without more than a cursory examination of freely available evidence, it seems to be "no" on several of the issues - what kinds of parties he attended, his acquaintance with certain groups, a few points about his drinking and party lifestyle.

It's clearly the sort of wiggle room that they'll try and manoeuver in when questions are raised about the honesty of his claims, but in a situation where the balance of probability is the standard, he's blatantly and unambiguously short of the standards required.

The gold standard of candidates shouldn't be that nthey've never done something embarrassing. These processes should be a bit of an ordeal for the applicant, because they should be laid bare to the nation and their character, good and bad, should be exposed. It shouldn't be a big deal that he went on the piss as a 17 year old, so he shouldn't have to lie about it.

Perfection throughout his life is not the same as being beyond reproach now.

If he had been totally up front about everything, I think the criticism of his appointment would have less of a leg to stand on. Even if the reality of his lifestyle as a youth makes it more credible that he sexually assaulted Dr Ford, his honesty would suggest he is at least a more legitimate candidate leaving aside from that issue.

The balance of probability, as determined by a serious FBI investigation would still be required to decide whether the alleged sexual assault should disqualify him, but it would at least allow the possibility that he should be found in favour of and is a decent candidate.

Not only do his actions make it appear more likely he committed the sexual assault, by diminishing his credibility, but on their own they ought to disqualify him as a candidate.

splashuum · 03-10-2018 3:16pm

pixelburp wrote: »

splashuum wrote: »

What economy has he sank? The US economy is at its best in decades.

Do you think that magically happened in the < 2 years he has been in office? Be serious for a second. I don't pretend to be an economics expert but let's not ignore how it took 10 years for Ireland's economy to recover from the 2008 crash -and many would say we're nowhere near that recovery yet & just hobbling along.

The US is no different.

Like Trump all you want, but don't fall for the usual politicians trick of taking credit for something that happened before their time. The economy was heading upwards under the last fella, and as mentioned Trump's spiking of the deficit is going to cause problems.

My question was how Trump has “sank the economy” ? I also stated that the US economy is doing well which I standby. Im not falling for any political tricks.

Professor Moriarty · 03-10-2018 3:30pm

splashuum wrote: »

My question was how Trump has “sank the economy” ? I also stated that the US economy is doing well which I standby. Im not falling for any political tricks.

If you ignore the ballooning budget deficit, environmental damage and cutting entitlements for the poor, then you are spot on.

Leroy42 · 03-10-2018 3:43pm

splashuum wrote: »

My question was how Trump has “sank the economy” ? I also stated that the US economy is doing well which I standby. Im not falling for any political tricks.

Think of it like a credit card. Your next door neighbour buys the big car, the fancy tv, holidays, nice suits, etc etc. It looks like he/she has really made it.

But eventually the credit line stops. That is pretty much what Trump is doing.

Doesn't look so great now.

Call Me Jimmy · 03-10-2018 3:49pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. Nope nope nope.

You don't get to be conflicted about a candidate for the United States Supreme Court lying under oath. If he lied at his hearing, he's unsuitable for the office.

It wouldn't be the only reason he's unsuitable, in my view - his unhinged partisan rant would be another - but that's a matter of opinion, whereas perjury is a matter of fact.

That's why I want Trump supporters to answer the question: do they believe that every word he said was true?

You want people to answer your question. No I don't believe every word he said was true. If it is proven he lied he should not be on the court.

Now let's assume he doesn't get on the court.

Question for you: do you believe that every word Ford said is true out of interest? (Does it matter?)

Will you care about Swetnick's accusation and the fallout from it?

(assuming no other witnesses actually come forward with any corroborating information, no matter how small. Or Swetnick actually says she saw Kavanaugh do anything she originally implied)

swampgas · 03-10-2018 3:59pm

Surely the question shouldn't simply be whether Kavanaugh is suitable or not - it should be is he the most suitable?
There are a number of other candidates, surely one of them could be a better pick?

Or is it simply that Kavanaugh is corrupt the same way Trump is, and is likely to make decisions that would help him out? That's my take on it anyhow. Trump doesn't want a SC Judge who plays by the rules, rules are for little people and losers.

Water John · 03-10-2018 4:02pm

Certainly the out of field opinions of Brett Kavanaugh on the Presidency swayed Trump along with the Koch Bros finance.

spacecoyote · 03-10-2018 4:08pm

splashuum wrote: »

My question was how Trump has “sank the economy” ? I also stated that the US economy is doing well which I standby. Im not falling for any political tricks.

No one on here has explicitly stated that Trump has sunk the US economy. What they are saying is that his actions today are setting things up for it to sink in the future, and that he won't likely have to suffer the consequences of that

robinph · 03-10-2018 4:08pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Question for you: do you believe that every word Ford said is true out of interest? (Does it matter?)

Doesn't matter.

Even if everything she said was a lie, if Kavanaughs response to that is to lie himself or make claims about a Clinton conspiracy then he is not suitable for the job he's being interviewed to do.

everlast75 · 03-10-2018 4:12pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

You want people to answer your question. No I don't believe every word he said was true. If it is proven he lied he should not be on the court.

Now let's assume he doesn't get on the court.

Question for you: do you believe that every word Ford said is true out of interest? (Does it matter?)

Will you care about Swetnick's accusation and the fallout from it?

(assuming no other witnesses actually come forward with any corroborating information, no matter how small. Or Swetnick actually says she saw Kavanaugh do anything she originally implied)

Are you not making two separate points here?

Firstly, whether Kavanaugh should be on the SC.

Secondly, what are to come of the allegations.

In relation to the first, I think it is comprehensively proven that he lied. I think you accept that. Based on the fact that this is a lifetime position on the Supreme Court and one would imagine that a judge to sit on that should respect the principle that one should not lie under oath, that's a done deal. Certainly, as a Judge, he would not tolerate someone lying under oath to him. So no hypocrisy allowed - no seat for him.

In relation the complaints and what is to be done with them. I do 100% believe Ford to answer your question to the other poster.

As for Rameriz and Swetnick, I believe that those allegations will hang over him unless a thorough FBI investigation is completed and makes its findings. The difficulty Kavanaugh put himself in is refusing to endorse one, or even request that one occur in order to clear his name. That was his choice, so to blame the accusers on that cloud over his head is wrong.

In other words;

He lied under oath, which was his fault. He did so of his own free will.

He refused to request or endorse an investigation into what he alleged to be a false accusation. Again, his fault.

I have every sympathy for anyone accused of a crime, but once you are accused, you really need to try and get to the bottom of it, or else it will appear that you are hiding something.

Professor Moriarty · 03-10-2018 4:12pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

You want people to answer your question. No I don't believe every word he said was true. If it is proven he lied he should not be on the court.

Now let's assume he doesn't get on the court.

Question for you: do you believe that every word Ford said is true out of interest? (Does it matter?)

Will you care about Swetnick's accusation and the fallout from it?

(assuming no other witnesses actually come forward with any corroborating information, no matter how small. Or Swetnick actually says she saw Kavanaugh do anything she originally implied)

Cui bono? What does Ford stand to gain if what she said was untrue? What does Kavanaugh stand to gain if what he said is untrue?

Nobody knows how much of what each person says is true but one of them is truthful. I know which one my money is on.

RIGOLO · 03-10-2018 4:20pm

So the ADP jobless numbers are in and they are stellar.

CNBC normally not given to hyperbole, but even they are astounded by the numbers.

'Rip-roaring hot' jobs market sees private payrolls surge by 230,000, highest since February

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/private-payrolls-grew-by-230000-in-september-vs-185k-est-adp.html

Expectations were in the 180,000 mark.

And the DOW hits a new RECORD after their announcement.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/us-markets-fresh-economic-data-in-focus.html

So all in all its more things for Trump to cover on his campaign trail. Again this will all feed into the mid-terms.
Instead of increasing entitlement and social welfare payments, the Trump Administration took a much more intellegient perspective and just got everyone back working.

Give them a job so they can buy their own food and lift themselves and their families out of whatever rut they were in, instead of dumping them into the food stamp downward spiral.

This is real change for many Americans, and they wont forget this change when they go to the ballot.
Its also a generational change as children will not forget either what party lifted their economy out of the doldrums.

Professor Moriarty · 03-10-2018 4:25pm

RIGOLO wrote: »

So the ADP jobless numbers are in and they are stellar.

CNBC normally not given to hyperbole, but even they are astounded by the numbers.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/private-payrolls-grew-by-230000-in-september-vs-185k-est-adp.html

Expectations were in the 180,000 mark.

And the DOW hits a new RECORD after their announcement.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/us-markets-fresh-economic-data-in-focus.html

So all in all its more things for Trump to cover on his campaign trail. Again this will all feed into the mid-terms.
Instead of increasing entitlement and social welfare payments, the Trump Administration took a much more intellegient perspective and just got everyone back working.

Give them a job so they can buy their own food and lift themselves and their families out of whatever rut they were in, instead of dumping them into the food stamp downward spiral.

This is real change for many Americans, and they wont forget this change when they go to the ballot.
Its also a generational change as children will not forget either what party lifted their economy out of the doldrums.

Apart from this statement being factually incorrect, you yet again ignore the impact of a sharply rising deficit. The children will indeed have cause to remember The Donald and how he sold their fiscal and environmental future in exchange for corporate tax cuts. But look, put your fingers back in your ears and recite lah lah lah.

weisses · 03-10-2018 4:36pm

RIGOLO wrote: »

Its also a generational change as children will not forget either what party lifted their economy out of the doldrums.

You do realize you are referring to the democrats under Obama

listermint · 03-10-2018 4:39pm

RIGOLO wrote: »

So the ADP jobless numbers are in and they are stellar.

CNBC normally not given to hyperbole, but even they are astounded by the numbers.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/private-payrolls-grew-by-230000-in-september-vs-185k-est-adp.html

Expectations were in the 180,000 mark.

And the DOW hits a new RECORD after their announcement.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/us-markets-fresh-economic-data-in-focus.html

So all in all its more things for Trump to cover on his campaign trail. Again this will all feed into the mid-terms.
Instead of increasing entitlement and social welfare payments, the Trump Administration took a much more intellegient perspective and just got everyone back working.

Give them a job so they can buy their own food and lift themselves and their families out of whatever rut they were in, instead of dumping them into the food stamp downward spiral.

This is real change for many Americans, and they wont forget this change when they go to the ballot.
Its also a generational change as children will not forget either what party lifted their economy out of the doldrums.

Ah are these the zero hour contract jobs ? they 2/3/4 jobs that are needed to pay for any healthcare sick families would have.

Yes its the American Dream alright.
Winning

Call Me Jimmy · 03-10-2018 4:39pm

everlast75 wrote: »

Are you not making two separate points here?

Firstly, whether Kavanaugh should be on the SC.

Secondly, what are to come of the allegations.

In relation to the first, I think it is comprehensively proven that he lied. I think you accept that. Based on the fact that this is a lifetime position on the Supreme Court and one would imagine that a judge to sit on that should respect the principle that one should not lie under oath, that's a done deal. Certainly, as a Judge, he would not tolerate someone lying under oath to him. So no hypocrisy allowed - no seat for him.

In relation the complaints and what is to be done with them. I do 100% believe Ford to answer your question to the other poster.

As for Rameriz and Swetnick, I believe that those allegations will hang over him unless a thorough FBI investigation is completed and makes its findings. The difficulty Kavanaugh put himself in is refusing to endorse one, or even request that one occur in order to clear his name. That was his choice, so to blame the accusers on that cloud over his head is wrong.

In other words;

He lied under oath, which was his fault. He did so of his own free will.

He refused to request or endorse an investigation into what he alleged to be a false accusation. Again, his fault.

I have every sympathy for anyone accused of a crime, but once you are accused, you really need to try and get to the bottom of it, or else it will appear that you are hiding something.

That's why I asked my questions assuming he would not get on the court. I think all the people who believe Swetnick will forget very fast what an unholy mess she unleashed on him once the politicking is done with. Add to that a completely anonymous allegation blasted by the press. And the allegation whose victim refuted it (his ex-girlfriend).
I think by christmas, only Ford's allegation will still potentially be ambiguous, with no date time or place that's understandable but the very light weight of testimony is on Kavanaugh's side at the moment. Only Ford is even sure she saw Kavanaugh doing anything criminal. That's mad when you think how much has been claimed.

prawnsambo · 03-10-2018 4:48pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

That's why I asked my questions assuming he would not get on the court. I think all the people who believe Swetnick will forget very fast what an unholy mess she unleashed on him once the politicking is done with. Add to that a completely anonymous allegation blasted by the press. And the allegation whose victim refuted it (his ex-girlfriend).
I think by christmas, only Ford's allegation will still potentially be ambiguous, with no date time or place that's understandable but the very light weight of testimony is on Kavanaugh's side at the moment. Only Ford is even sure she saw Kavanaugh doing anything criminal. That's mad when you think how much has been claimed.

This is not one bit unique in sexual assault cases.

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

Comments