Ok. Enlighten us. What lies did he tell?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Reasons For or Against Kavanaugh's Confirmation
- Thread starter Nous
- Start date
MetallicHue
Member
Why are we still talking about this?
Losing the election & then 2 confirmation battles is hard on a person.
This most recent loss is the freshest wound.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
He lied about his time at Harvard? (I forget exactly, as I really don't care.)
He lied about what he did, during his attack on women. He lied-- repeatedly-- about being a drunken womanizer.
There's much more, but CONservitives don't give a shirt about any of that, so long as their MAN is properly bought and paid for.
It was he said she said. That doesn’t make him a liar. It means the allegations were not corroborated.
As for being bought and paid for, I guess you’re not aware of his voting record so far on the Supreme Court.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Not really-- it was she said, and she also said, and he collaborated what she/she/she/she said, and so did he and he and he-- all contradicting K's lies.
Multiple women would have testified, men too, had not K's owners shut it down prematurely.
All of these demonstrating K had no morals, no sense of justice, but instead, enjoyed entitled privilege given to rich, white males. But that pretty much describes much of congress, and the senate too, and especially tЯump, it was a slam-dunk that K was to be forced upon the US.
And accusers were caught lying. You left that part out.
False. The FBI was not allowed to conduct anything resembling a normal, thorough investigation into accusations of criminal conduct. The final report, which lawmakers were only allowed to read in camera, apparently consisted of little more than what is known as "302" forms used for supplementary background checks.
The FBI's supplemental investigation into the sexual assault allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh was limited in scope from the beginning.
There was never a directive to the FBI to investigate a third assault allegation against Kavanaugh, or to probe his drinking habits and whether he lied about them to the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to a source briefed on the investigation.
The reason for that limited scope is now at the heart of the fight between Democrats and Republicans over the 45-page FBI report that senators have been able to review in the Senate's secure spaces ahead of a key procedural vote Friday on the Supreme Court nominee.
Senate Republicans and the White House say they allowed the FBI to pursue leads within the parameters that Sen. Jeff Flake and other undecided Republican senators agreed to: credible, current allegations against Kavanaugh.
They point to the fact that the FBI ultimately conducted interviews with nine people as part of the investigation, more than just the initial witnesses named in last week's hearing.
And for Julie Swetnick -- who among other allegations accused Kavanaugh of sexually aggressive behavior at alcohol-fueled parties when he was in high school -- the accusation was deemed not credible by the White House, so it was not part of what the FBI was instructed to look at, according to a source briefed on the investigation.
But Democrats argue that the parameters that Republicans initially set chartered a course for the FBI that was never going to uncover anything that could corroborate the assault accusations from Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Swetnick.
In particular, they charged that the White House prevented the FBI from interviewing Kavanaugh and Ford themselves.
There was never a directive to the FBI to investigate a third assault allegation against Kavanaugh, or to probe his drinking habits and whether he lied about them to the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to a source briefed on the investigation.
The reason for that limited scope is now at the heart of the fight between Democrats and Republicans over the 45-page FBI report that senators have been able to review in the Senate's secure spaces ahead of a key procedural vote Friday on the Supreme Court nominee.
Senate Republicans and the White House say they allowed the FBI to pursue leads within the parameters that Sen. Jeff Flake and other undecided Republican senators agreed to: credible, current allegations against Kavanaugh.
They point to the fact that the FBI ultimately conducted interviews with nine people as part of the investigation, more than just the initial witnesses named in last week's hearing.
And for Julie Swetnick -- who among other allegations accused Kavanaugh of sexually aggressive behavior at alcohol-fueled parties when he was in high school -- the accusation was deemed not credible by the White House, so it was not part of what the FBI was instructed to look at, according to a source briefed on the investigation.
But Democrats argue that the parameters that Republicans initially set chartered a course for the FBI that was never going to uncover anything that could corroborate the assault accusations from Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Swetnick.
In particular, they charged that the White House prevented the FBI from interviewing Kavanaugh and Ford themselves.
Sources describe FBI's limited investigation on Kavanaugh - CNNPolitics
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
I left it out, because it's not even a little bit true. Ooops!
CONservitives think everything that does not agree with their agenda, is a lie.
Imagine that?
Your own biased source acknowledges none different interviews.
Judy Muro-Leighton admitted to lying.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
LOL! I don't have a biased source. I absolutely refuse to listen to Breitbart, or Fox Noise, or any other of the Russian Repeat-Bots.
I leave them to CONservitives, who prefer the confirming lie.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Who? There were multiple women willing to come forward, with testimonies of attacks-- repeated attacks, by K and his privileged Rich White Male Club.
But the CONservitive Russian Republicans shut that down before it could be read into the record.
CNN politics? Please.
Surprised you don’t know about the liar. Your biased sources aren’t so thorough I guess.
Oh, and now you’re going to be racist against whites. Nice touch.
My "own biased source acknowledges" what?
Apparently you do not dispute that the FBI was not allowed to conduct an ordinary thorough investigation into a possibly criminal matter.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
What's that? I don't watch cable news of any stripe. Guess again, Mr Straw Man.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
I remain unconvinced she was a liar-- in contrast to K who we have on record, lying his overstuffed chair-sitter off.
The old....
If-only-they'd-investigated-a-little-more-they'd-have-found-what-I-know-must-be-there
Problems.....
- The great passage of time.
- Booze fueled teen parties typically documentation.
- Less than credible accusers.
I know it's tempting to leap to belief, & then invest great confidence.
But some things just aren't knowable.