Herochat

Lindsey Graham...

therock

  • ********
  • 8766
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #30 on: September 26, 2018, 07:16:16 PM »
Ford story help by she told her therapist before kav was a contender. so unless this playing the long game it helps her credibillity. not enough to make it 100 percent but enough to make her story stronger

woukdnt say thinking they will overtur  woe v wade fear mongering. first that what trump and the gop said they will do

second if they dont overturn it they may nip at. with saying you can't have clinics who walls arent wide enough. which is a true thing they tried

and yes that may lead to women taking matters into their own hands.

and people say no way they would do something so unpopular but a lot if things they done like the health bill and tax thing was wildly unpopular even among their base

think they know 2018 going to be a slaughter and may be in 2020 so they getting as much shit as they can befor their kicked out

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #31 on: September 26, 2018, 07:45:14 PM »
The question of motive is a red herring. There can be a myriad of reasons for not reporting a crime to the police. Likewise, there can be many reasons for accusing a public figure of a crime.

I also don’t think the number of claims is illuminating in this case. When explaining that he didn’t get pranked, Avenatti stated:

“We’ve received over 3,000 inquiries in the last six months from people with all kinds of crazy stories and fabrications.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/avenatti-denies-being-duped-4chan-user-over-kavanaugh-accuser-1138882%3Famp%3D1

The number of allegations matters less than whether any single allegation has been corroborated by eyewitnesses or circumstantial evidence such as a written note or diary entry. I think the main issue with the Ford and Ramirez stories so far is that every alleged eyewitness either has no recollection or contradicts the claims.

Right now, the new accuser’s story has some weight because it’s a sworn statement and she swore she knew of other witnesses who would corroborate the gang rape allegations. If there are other witnesses, they need to testify and stop an alleged monster from being a judge even on the DC Circuit. But right now it leaves a lot of questions, like:

1. Why aren’t any of the other alleged gang rape conspirators named in Swetnick’s declaration? Does she just remember Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, but no one else? No one who isn’t in the news?

2. Did any other witnesses see these gang rape lines leading into bedrooms every weekend at the high school parties? If so, did any of the dozens of witnesses report this to parents or friends at the time? Did anyone keep a diary entry or a written note about it?

3. Any more specific details about where/when these parties occurred? The only specific time/place she’s named is “Beach Week,” a phrase that appears on the calendars Kavanaugh had just released right before her statement came out.

4. She graduated high school in 1980 and was two years older than Kavanaugh. She alleges that she continued attending high school parties in 1982. Do other witnesses recall a college age woman who fits her profile regularly attending their high school parties?

5. As an adult, college age woman attending parties where she knew underage girls were being gang raped almost every weekend, did she tell anyone? Did she warn these underage girls to avoid the punchbowl? Were any parents informed? Her declaration states that she has witnesses who can corroborate all of her statements. If that’s true, they need to testify. 
« Last Edit: September 26, 2018, 08:30:08 PM by Rufio »

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #32 on: September 26, 2018, 08:27:35 PM »
Ford story help by she told her therapist before kav was a contender. so unless this playing the long game it helps her credibillity. not enough to make it 100 percent but enough to make her story stronger

woukdnt say thinking they will overtur  woe v wade fear mongering. first that what trump and the gop said they will do

second if they dont overturn it they may nip at. with saying you can't have clinics who walls arent wide enough. which is a true thing they tried

and yes that may lead to women taking matters into their own hands.

and people say no way they would do something so unpopular but a lot if things they done like the health bill and tax thing was wildly unpopular even among their base

think they know 2018 going to be a slaughter and may be in 2020 so they getting as much shit as they can befor their kicked out

The therapist’s notes apparently implicate 4 boys in the assault and don’t mention Kavanaugh by name. By the time she took the polygraph in 2018, she alleged that it was 4 boys and 2 girls in the house, and only 2 boys (Kavanaugh and Judge) were in on the assault. She claims her therapist wrote it down wrong. She isn’t turning over the notes or volunteering to waive privilege so that the therapist can testify. That is unfortunate because the therapist would be a material witness, just as Kavanaugh’s alcoholic friend would be.

She did subsequently name Kavanaugh to 4-5 other people between 2012-18, but 2012 was the year Kavanaugh was named by Romney as a contender to the Supreme Court. One question is whether she brought up Kavanaugh’s name before or after Romney’s people mentioned him.

therock

  • ********
  • 8766
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #33 on: September 26, 2018, 09:09:58 PM »
Ford story help by she told her therapist before kav was a contender. so unless this playing the long game it helps her credibillity. not enough to make it 100 percent but enough to make her story stronger

woukdnt say thinking they will overtur  woe v wade fear mongering. first that what trump and the gop said they will do

second if they dont overturn it they may nip at. with saying you can't have clinics who walls arent wide enough. which is a true thing they tried

and yes that may lead to women taking matters into their own hands.

and people say no way they would do something so unpopular but a lot if things they done like the health bill and tax thing was wildly unpopular even among their base

think they know 2018 going to be a slaughter and may be in 2020 so they getting as much shit as they can befor their kicked out

The therapist’s notes apparently implicate 4 boys in the assault and don’t mention Kavanaugh by name. By the time she took the polygraph in 2018, she alleged that it was 4 boys and 2 girls in the house, and only 2 boys (Kavanaugh and Judge) were in on the assault. She claims her therapist wrote it down wrong. She isn’t turning over the notes or volunteering to waive privilege so that the therapist can testify. That is unfortunate because the therapist would be a material witness, just as Kavanaugh’s alcoholic friend would be.

She did subsequently name Kavanaugh to 4-5 other people between 2012-18, but 2012 was the year Kavanaugh was named by Romney as a contender to the Supreme Court. One question is whether she brought up Kavanaugh’s name before or after Romney’s people mentioned him.

did she pass the polygram test

for me can see her staying quiet for years till the guy was about to get real power and just couldn't let that happen

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #34 on: September 26, 2018, 09:58:00 PM »
Ford story help by she told her therapist before kav was a contender. so unless this playing the long game it helps her credibillity. not enough to make it 100 percent but enough to make her story stronger

woukdnt say thinking they will overtur  woe v wade fear mongering. first that what trump and the gop said they will do

second if they dont overturn it they may nip at. with saying you can't have clinics who walls arent wide enough. which is a true thing they tried

and yes that may lead to women taking matters into their own hands.

and people say no way they would do something so unpopular but a lot if things they done like the health bill and tax thing was wildly unpopular even among their base

think they know 2018 going to be a slaughter and may be in 2020 so they getting as much shit as they can befor their kicked out

The therapist’s notes apparently implicate 4 boys in the assault and don’t mention Kavanaugh by name. By the time she took the polygraph in 2018, she alleged that it was 4 boys and 2 girls in the house, and only 2 boys (Kavanaugh and Judge) were in on the assault. She claims her therapist wrote it down wrong. She isn’t turning over the notes or volunteering to waive privilege so that the therapist can testify. That is unfortunate because the therapist would be a material witness, just as Kavanaugh’s alcoholic friend would be.

She did subsequently name Kavanaugh to 4-5 other people between 2012-18, but 2012 was the year Kavanaugh was named by Romney as a contender to the Supreme Court. One question is whether she brought up Kavanaugh’s name before or after Romney’s people mentioned him.

did she pass the polygram test

for me can see her staying quiet for years till the guy was about to get real power and just couldn't let that happen

She passed. But there were literally only two questions (and it appears that she then scribbled in amended answers in writing). In theory, you need a series a baseline questions for a polygraph to pick up whether your answers are deviating from the baseline. In practice, even with a series of baseline questions, polygraphs are completely unreliable. That’s why they’re inadmissible in court.

I agree it’s believable that even if she knew all along, she’d wait until he’s on a Supreme Court short list to name him. But it’s also consistent with her having a vague, malleable memory, which was filled in with a specific person when she heard Kavanaugh’s name and reviewed a picture of him.

I’m also wondering whether she is saying she knew it was him for 30 years or if she’s claiming it was a repressed memory that came out in 2012. The former is much more scientifically sound than the latter. Many psychologists believe they can help patients recover “repressed” memories. In practice, they’ve often implanted false memories in the process. That’s what led to a number of satanic child abuse accusations in the 1980s-early 90s. Several criminal convictions were overturned when it was found that psychologists had mistakenly implanted false memories. Not saying that’s what happened here, but the senators would be able to rule that out if she let them see the notes and hear from the psychologist in private.

therock

  • ********
  • 8766
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #35 on: September 26, 2018, 10:44:40 PM »
Ford story help by she told her therapist before kav was a contender. so unless this playing the long game it helps her credibillity. not enough to make it 100 percent but enough to make her story stronger

woukdnt say thinking they will overtur  woe v wade fear mongering. first that what trump and the gop said they will do

second if they dont overturn it they may nip at. with saying you can't have clinics who walls arent wide enough. which is a true thing they tried

and yes that may lead to women taking matters into their own hands.

and people say no way they would do something so unpopular but a lot if things they done like the health bill and tax thing was wildly unpopular even among their base

think they know 2018 going to be a slaughter and may be in 2020 so they getting as much shit as they can befor their kicked out

The therapist’s notes apparently implicate 4 boys in the assault and don’t mention Kavanaugh by name. By the time she took the polygraph in 2018, she alleged that it was 4 boys and 2 girls in the house, and only 2 boys (Kavanaugh and Judge) were in on the assault. She claims her therapist wrote it down wrong. She isn’t turning over the notes or volunteering to waive privilege so that the therapist can testify. That is unfortunate because the therapist would be a material witness, just as Kavanaugh’s alcoholic friend would be.

She did subsequently name Kavanaugh to 4-5 other people between 2012-18, but 2012 was the year Kavanaugh was named by Romney as a contender to the Supreme Court. One question is whether she brought up Kavanaugh’s name before or after Romney’s people mentioned him.

did she pass the polygram test

for me can see her staying quiet for years till the guy was about to get real power and just couldn't let that happen

She passed. But there were literally only two questions (and it appears that she then scribbled in amended answers in writing). In theory, you need a series a baseline questions for a polygraph to pick up whether your answers are deviating from the baseline. In practice, even with a series of baseline questions, polygraphs are completely unreliable. That’s why they’re inadmissible in court.

I agree it’s believable that even if she knew all along, she’d wait until he’s on a Supreme Court short list to name him. But it’s also consistent with her having a vague, malleable memory, which was filled in with a specific person when she heard Kavanaugh’s name and reviewed a picture of him.

I’m also wondering whether she is saying she knew it was him for 30 years or if she’s claiming it was a repressed memory that came out in 2012. The former is much more scientifically sound than the latter. Many psychologists believe they can help patients recover “repressed” memories. In practice, they’ve often implanted false memories in the process. That’s what led to a number of satanic child abuse accusations in the 1980s-early 90s. Several criminal convictions were overturned when it was found that psychologists had mistakenly implanted false memories. Not saying that’s what happened here, but the senators would be able to rule that out if she let them see the notes and hear from the psychologist in private.

well the fact she willing to take the polygram test and was at first wanted to remain anonymous  add to her story

namely wanting an fbi investigation put hey legal risk

for instance beleave the second alledge victim less due to her story being sketchy

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #36 on: September 27, 2018, 09:49:21 AM »
Ford story help by she told her therapist before kav was a contender. so unless this playing the long game it helps her credibillity. not enough to make it 100 percent but enough to make her story stronger

woukdnt say thinking they will overtur  woe v wade fear mongering. first that what trump and the gop said they will do

second if they dont overturn it they may nip at. with saying you can't have clinics who walls arent wide enough. which is a true thing they tried

and yes that may lead to women taking matters into their own hands.

and people say no way they would do something so unpopular but a lot if things they done like the health bill and tax thing was wildly unpopular even among their base

think they know 2018 going to be a slaughter and may be in 2020 so they getting as much shit as they can befor their kicked out

The therapist’s notes apparently implicate 4 boys in the assault and don’t mention Kavanaugh by name. By the time she took the polygraph in 2018, she alleged that it was 4 boys and 2 girls in the house, and only 2 boys (Kavanaugh and Judge) were in on the assault. She claims her therapist wrote it down wrong. She isn’t turning over the notes or volunteering to waive privilege so that the therapist can testify. That is unfortunate because the therapist would be a material witness, just as Kavanaugh’s alcoholic friend would be.

She did subsequently name Kavanaugh to 4-5 other people between 2012-18, but 2012 was the year Kavanaugh was named by Romney as a contender to the Supreme Court. One question is whether she brought up Kavanaugh’s name before or after Romney’s people mentioned him.

did she pass the polygram test

for me can see her staying quiet for years till the guy was about to get real power and just couldn't let that happen

She passed. But there were literally only two questions (and it appears that she then scribbled in amended answers in writing). In theory, you need a series a baseline questions for a polygraph to pick up whether your answers are deviating from the baseline. In practice, even with a series of baseline questions, polygraphs are completely unreliable. That’s why they’re inadmissible in court.

I agree it’s believable that even if she knew all along, she’d wait until he’s on a Supreme Court short list to name him. But it’s also consistent with her having a vague, malleable memory, which was filled in with a specific person when she heard Kavanaugh’s name and reviewed a picture of him.

I’m also wondering whether she is saying she knew it was him for 30 years or if she’s claiming it was a repressed memory that came out in 2012. The former is much more scientifically sound than the latter. Many psychologists believe they can help patients recover “repressed” memories. In practice, they’ve often implanted false memories in the process. That’s what led to a number of satanic child abuse accusations in the 1980s-early 90s. Several criminal convictions were overturned when it was found that psychologists had mistakenly implanted false memories. Not saying that’s what happened here, but the senators would be able to rule that out if she let them see the notes and hear from the psychologist in private.

well the fact she willing to take the polygram test and was at first wanted to remain anonymous  add to her story

namely wanting an fbi investigation put hey legal risk

for instance beleave the second alledge victim less due to her story being sketchy

Actually, the fact that she took a polygraph right around the time she sent a letter to the Senate doesn’t really add anything, especially since there were no control questions. If she had failed it, she probably wouldn’t have revealed the result. It was a low risk proposition.

I do want to slightly correct what I said before. For about 70 years, the federal rules of evidence completely excluded polygraphs under the Frye standard because they aren’t accepted as reliable by the scientific community. Since the 1990s, the court switched to the Daubert standard, which allows individual judges to decide whether an expert opinion is reliable. In practice, polygraphs are still excluded in virtually all federal courts because many scientists see them as no more reliable than a coin flip:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/523/303.html

Those who do claim there’s some reliability make that assertion when there are “control” questions to compare the answer against. Ford’s polygraph contained two questions, both about what she told her therapist. No control questions.

There’s also very little legal risk to her allegations because even if she’s wrong, it’s 30 years ago. False memories aren’t that uncommon, especially where therapy is involved. Unless someone has evidence that she’s intentionally lying, there’s not much risk of a perjury charge or a defamation judgment.

On the other hand, Swetnick does face serious legal risk if she doesn’t have other witnesses to the alleged gang rapes. She claimed under oath that she had other witnesses. Georgetown prep students have now signed a letter from Kavanaugh’s attorney disputing her claims that their parties involved gang rapes. If her witnesses don’t appear, it’s hard for her to attribute it to a mistaken memory because all of the details of her claim are similar to recent news stories. The alleged gang rapes involving Mark Judge seem like an exaggerated version of the New Yorker story, where Judge’s ex girlfriend said he told her about one occasion where he and others (not Kavanaugh) all had sex with the same woman, but thought it was consensual. The “mean drunk” allegation also mirrors a claim in the New Yorker story. The “Beach Week” allegation mirrors an entry in Kavanaugh’s calendar, which had just become public. The qualludes allegation mirrors the Bill Cosby story, which was just in the headlines this past week due to his sentencing.
 
Swetnick also seems to have a colorful legal history:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/heavy.com/news/2018/09/julie-swetnick-defamation-lawsuit-webtrends/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2018/09/26/plot-twist-kavanaugh-accuser-sued-her-former-employer-for-sexual-harassment-but-thats-not-all-n2523023%3Famp%3Dtrue

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/09/26/ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order-against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348

Assuming no mistaken identity, she sued a former employer for sexual harassment. She was represented by Ford’s current attorney. The case settled. She also was sued by her former employer for defamation and fraud. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice (which often means there was a settlement). And her former boyfriend sued her for domestic abuse, but dismissed the case claiming financial reasons.

And now, there are two new anonymous women claiming Kavanaugh attacked them. Plus two new men claiming they, not Kavanaugh, were involved in an encounter with Ford:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1439569002

This is getting surreal.

To bring this back on topic, Lindsay Graham weighs in again:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/lindsey-graham-i-dont-buy-third-accusers-allegations%3F_amp%3Dtrue

He claims Avenetti’s involvement with the Swetnick claim and the facial implausibility are “all you need to know.” That’s stupid. While the claim is remarkable, that doesn’t mean it’s untrue. Swetnick says she has witnesses. They need to come forward.

XerxesTWD

  • *****
  • 6642
  • +98/-26
  • You can't park here, buddy. Earth is closed today.
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #37 on: September 27, 2018, 11:11:14 AM »
Lindsey Graham can't really maintain any consistency in what he says. He's directly contradicted himself on multiple occasions.


If Kavanaugh is eventually removed from the equation, he'll say it was "for the best" and "maybe what should have happened in the first place, but we had to follow procedure".

MTL76

  • ********
  • 10148
  • +1136/-119
  • "What if I know all your secrets, Your Eminence?"
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #38 on: September 27, 2018, 09:06:36 PM »
What did you guys think of the hearing today?


Minority Shareholder, Combine Honnete Ober Advancer Mercantiles (CHOAM)

The Create A Team / Power Set Combo Compendium

Propeus The Fallen

  • ******
  • 3546
  • +32/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #39 on: September 27, 2018, 11:49:13 PM »
A disgrace. It's pathetic how our country has been divided. Only a few democrats held some sort of standard.

And as for Lindsey Graham--he's a disgrace. I thought not defending his best friend was pathetic, but today--he's human garbage to me.


Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #41 on: September 28, 2018, 10:42:16 AM »
I disagree. Lindsey Graham’s assessment of the evidence and the senators’ handling of this was accurate:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/lindsey-graham-kavanaugh-ford/571558/

He’s right that it appears Dianne Feinstein and the lawyer intentionally timed this to create a public
spectacle. It’s disgusting that senators were using this hearing as a fundraising tool just minutes after it began.

I only watched clips of the testimony, but both witnesses had believable acccounts. I think both of them believed what they were saying was the truth. That’s why the evidence outside of their memory is crucial and should’ve been reviewed in private.

The simplest explanation is that one of the witnesses is misremembering. Before the hearing, memory expert Elizabeth Lofthus explained how she would approach this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mediaite.com/online/interview-with-memory-expert-dr-loftus-therapy-books-could-have-manipulated-kavanaugh-accusers-story/amp/

None of the relevant facts for even reducing the likelihood of a false memory came out at this hearing. The lawyer refused to produce the psychologist’s notes before the hearing. According to news reports, those notes suggest four attackers in the room. Not just four people at the alleged party. The three other alleged witnesses and the psychologist didn’t appear. If Senator Feinstein had disclosed this allegation privately, the Senate could’ve gotten court approval to review all relevant medical records privately.

Graham is hypocritical in light of his stance on the Merrick Garland debacle, but his statements about the strength of the evidence and the dangerous precedent set by the handling of this are correct. The Republicans took a disgraceful approach to Garland. They tried to rush through Kavanaugh’s nomination. But the handling of this by Feinstein, Booker, and Hirono has been a disgraceful retaliation.

Ford apparently was never told by her lawyer that this could’ve been done privately in California, even though her lawyer was explicitly given that option. The week long delay in the hearing appears to have been designed to allow time to release the other allegations that are contradicted by all alleged eyewitnessees, including the recanted Rhode Island story that the media ran with, and Swetnick, who made a crazy allegation then refused to agree to interviews or name any witnesses she claims exist.

If this had been handled in July, the Senate already could’ve gotten a court order to allow the information from the alleged witnesses, therapist, and medical records to be reviewed privately. Since Kavanaugh’s calendar includes his high school social gatherings, the witnesses to those events could’ve been interviewed. It wouldn’t have come down to a public spectacle, which helps campaign fundraising but is a totally unreliable way of discerning truth.

However hypocritical it may be, Graham’s anger about this is genuine and justified. Based on Trump’s comments, I’ve always been worried he might create an Andrew Jackson-style crisis by ignoring a Supreme Court order. I’m now worried that this will have consequences for the judiciary’s legitimacy that are nearly as bad.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 11:06:14 AM by Rufio »

therock

  • ********
  • 8766
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #42 on: September 28, 2018, 11:56:27 AM »
ok actully heard linsey thing. He full of shit on the obstruction considering what he did with obama pick

And the whole complaint about the other lower judges who haven't been confirm is also really hypocritical

Also judge should be cross examine. And they probally should be an investigation into this. It be silly to have thing things..if Ford didn't testify. So it silly not to let people question judge as well. But they rushing it..and probally have the vote Friday

As for prescient...yea dems kind of fucked up way they did. They being somewhat puritan with the drinking.  the idea you HAVE to beleave the woman goes against innocent till proven guilty. So all that does set a bad precedent. But so is not having any investigation. I think if things were reverse...it no way they be cool with a dem nomination..that had 4 people excusing the person of rape..with them rushing this without an invesitgiation. so the precident is already preset.

And also if you think about how long other nominations took (not just Garland) this actully haven't been that long.  These things normally take a long time

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #43 on: September 28, 2018, 12:53:24 PM »
A number of people have pointed out that Graham has gotten pissed off repeatedly at past confirmation hearings when he felt judges were subjected to unfair personal attacks. I think he’s absolutely genuine. Is it hypocritical that he’s pissed about personal attacks but was okay with the ridiculous blocking of Garland? Yes. But this sort of public, uncorroborated character assassination of a judge is actually a step worse than the handling of Garland.

If the Democrats had wanted to delay the hearing back in July by releasing this privately, that would’ve been a great idea. I honestly suspect that either the psychologist would’ve confirmed this was originally a memory about four attackers, or Kavanaugh would’ve dropped out, possibly leading to Trump nominating his other top pick who was less experienced and more socially conservative.

Public personal attacks like this should never happen to a federal judge. Has anyone heard of Samuel Kent? Unlike Kavanaugh, he faced corroborated allegations of sexual assault. They were handled by the proper investigative body, the Fifth Circuit’s judicial misconduct panel:

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-conduct-disability

He was then impeached and convicted. If there were evidence against Kavanaugh that is susceptible to investigation, it would be the duty of the DC Circuit to investigate. Not the FBI (which can only be told to investigate by Trump). Not the journalists writing the nonsensical clickbait articles about this.

Mark Judge should testify, though his testimony should be about this alleged event and others directly involving Kavanaugh. His cross-examination shouldn’t be a media circus about his self-described alcoholism or claims about him that don’t involve Kavanaugh. Leland Keyser should also testify about whether she truthfully stated that she never met Kavanaugh, or if she gave an incorrect answer due to alleged health issues, as Ford believes. The third alleged witness should also testify to confirm again his lack of memory of any such party. And be asked if he ever met Ford or Keyser. But all of this should’ve been handled in a non-public setting.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 01:01:06 PM by Rufio »

Propeus The Fallen

  • ******
  • 3546
  • +32/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #44 on: September 28, 2018, 01:53:52 PM »
Here's something else that no one seems to be really talking about. Did anyone else listen to Bret yesterday? Does that sound like someone who can be fair, does that sound like someone who can be deliberate.

He spouted out a conspiracy theory!

Just compare his fox news interview to yesterday. It just makes him look so bad.

This entire thing is a joke. Worse, Bill Cosby was finally sentenced and I thought, "Finally, we're moving somewhere." Now a man who may have committed sexual assault could be in the supreme court?

And my problem with Lindsey is he just found a way to make victims victims again. Blame them, bang the table, make the attackers the victims. That's evil. You're opening old wounds and hurting these people again.



Guess what,  you do that during a job interview and you're not getting hired.

And as for the investigation that was done--but the republican staff. Yeah, Feinstein is questionable...but this is like playing a football game where the opposing team's equipment staff and trainers are the refs.

Everything about this process has been a disgrace. And it'll be a disgrace the next time, and the next. Because no one wants to do the right thing, or fall on the sword. Look at Jeff Flake, he talks about doing the right thing--but he will always go against everything he's ever said. And then hide in an elevator when confronted.