That's MSM not !SM....

No, never.  I've never condoned violence. I never will.


Yes you will.

No, I won't.  You don't know me.  Please don't put words in my mouth.  Don't assume you can.

Oh, I know you. And you absolutely will. Hopefully we'll have to wait a long time.

Regarding Starr, at what point in the investigation did Kavanaugh make suggestions? Was it the day after Drudge broke the Lewinsky story?.....

Yea it does. Says he's pretty darn smart.

Seriously, what's the problem?

Oh.....you think he should face the same thing......

To quote Reagan, 'there you go again...'.    You do realize this is another of your apples to oranges comparisons?....

The letter is dated more 3 1/2 years after Paula Jones filed a lawsuit against Clinton for sexual harassment. (Did anyone file a suit against Kavanagh 3 1/2 years ago? no)

1 1/2 years before the letter, Monica Lewinsky's name appears on Paula Jones witness list.

Lewinsky signs an affidavit nothing went on between her and Clinton, but a couple weeks later, a full 8 months before this letter, a tape recording was produced, (you're clearly not familiar with what this is but it's ACTUAL EVIDENCE !  The tape revealed Clinton was lying.

At the time of Clinton's Grand Jury hearing, mountains of evidence that Clinton had repeatedly lied was available.

Again, this was real evidence, not made up evidence.

If there were a tape of Kavanagh like there were with Clinton, he'd be toast.

If there were numerous other woman with witness's that demonstrated the likelihood of previous  acts, Kavanagh would be toast.

There's nothing like that. There's 9/11 conspiracy type stupidity that makes Democrats look like complete fools.
And now you've got a porn lawyer as your spokesman. Perfectly appropriate...

This is my point about the hated of leftist. You think Kavanagh deserves to be destroyed and his children's lives forever screwed up as pay back for punishment Clinton was fully deserving of.

You've got serious problems son.

But a serious question for you leftist. What this situation has produced is a new legal doctrine. It was best described by that complete idiot of a Senator from Hawaii.

Democrats have decided that any woman can make any claim against a man and it's assumed to be the truth and that man must find a way to defend himself or he's presumed to be 100% guilty. This is necessary in order to make up for decades of women being abused.

Is that okay with you? Is that what you want to sign onto?

No problem.  He should be held to the same scrutiny.

Oh.....you think he should face the same thing...... Yes

Ok, 3 1/2 years from now, months after a Grand Jury testimony, you could write a litter to the special prosecutor who was appointed to look into him after multiple allegations with actual evidence. You've got 3 1/2 years to get your law degree so you can be sure he faces the same thing.

Again, this was real evidence, not made up evidence.

I wonder why/how you figure that this is all made up against brett?  Do you know him?  Were you there?  No.  You only wish it was true.  That doesn't make it so.

Well, let's see. In both cases, all the other people who were alleged to have been there have all said they know absolutely nothing about either incident. By the way, one of these 'witness's' is married to a Democratic strategist and even she denies it.  So the question is, why would you think it's anything other than made up?

If there were numerous other woman with witness's that demonstrated the likelihood of previous  acts, Kavanagh would be toast.

Well, more are coming forward... I guess we'll see.

When someone comes forward with a credible allegations, we'll discuss that. If you're talking about the creepy porn lawyer's promised witness, I wouldn't bet anything on that.

LOL - yeah, that star you mention slept with our married president.  How cool, huh?

Yea, he probably did sleep with her.

He's under the microscope and he's volunteered to it.  He can always withdraw.  If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

You mean if you can't take the lying character assignation from scumbag$, stay out of the kitchen.

You've got serious problems son. Son?  I'm far from being your son...  Yeah, ease up on the name calling mark.  I know you're frustrated, but try to refrain
Serious problems is not name calling.

This is up for debate.

What is up for debate? The presumed guilt of a man after abuse is alleged by a woman with no evidence other than her word? Are you suggesting that's debatable?  

WebsterMark wrote on 09/25/18 at 12:52:10:


What's the alternative?  Not believing a woman's testimony?  If the FBI were brought in, maybe they could prove/disprove it.  But the GOPers don't want the FBI involved.  Go figure.

Feinstein held on to the letter at fords' request

thumperclone wrote on 09/25/18 at 16:20:18:


Not sure that's true. She asked not to be identified.

Even if true, why did Feinstein leak it after the hearings were over and the vote about to occur?

T And T Garage wrote on 09/25/18 at 16:26:47:


You're dodging.