Agreed. When you can't discuss or refute the points being made, it does look like a meaningless post.
I had a feeling all along this was the case. Whether she is merely another democrat hit person or a troubled sociopath is not important at this point. She has lied, repeatedly, and in each instance the lie was intended to bolster her shaky story and enhance her persona as the brave survivor. No doubt after Kavanaugh is confirmed she will go on to become another Anita Hill, a mediocrity who trades off her one moment of fame for the rest of her life.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/409167-kavanaugh-polling-fbi-on-the-hot-seat If the FBI finds no corroboration of the charges, 60 percent believe that Kavanaugh should then be confirmed, according to a weekend Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of 1,330 registered voters.
FBI investigations are limited to their scope, so no, having 6 previous investigations won't clear you if there are new allegations. Look the Cosby's case. it took 30 plus years for people to come forward and when the first person braved it, others joined. Crimes Like sexual assaults, sexual harassment and rape are rooted in one part exerting power over other, trauma, shame and fear cause the victims to react later assuming they can overcome them. Kavanaugh's case currently is being tried in the court of public opinion, not through the judicial system so he said/she said matters since it simply weighs into the parties credibility. Dr. Ford has been consistent with all of her inconsistencies whereas Kavanaugh has acted irrationally and immature. he has failed to show the character expected of a candidate for SCOTUS. he has portrayed himself as a person that he obviously is not (one simple apology on his first FOX interview could have swayed the opinions of many in public positively, but he chose to paint himself as a choir-boy instead of a frat boy).his attitude toward the position he has been nominated for is more of an entitlement rather than being grateful and being honored for the opportunity. Don't let me get started with Dems or Reps in Senate or Congress cause they are both useless, spineless and completely self-serving without giving a shit about the country. Both parties are a disgrace. only person who surprisingly have been open minded and semi rational in all of this is Trump. Bottom line, Kavanugh is not qualified nor deserves to get the job just on the ground of how he has handled this situation.
As you are autistic and can't understand these things I'll explain. As you know my late mom was American from a line starting in 1655. I have a huge US family, I visited relatives and even did a couple of months of high school as a teen in the US. I've not really thought very much about what I actually am. Technically yes, I am American however I've always used my other nationalities and I don't have a Social Security number. So while I might have put more thought into it, I was not trying to deceive anyone. One one hand I am, on another I'm not. So there is no lie it that. I've never wasted time on a political discussion like ET before. If you can argue there was, fine, say so. Otherwise you are just mischaracterising something to the point of lies yourself. In the Kavanaugh situation nobody wants a gotcha over microscopically petty things, several might seem very small however he accrued quite a lot recently that causes pause for concern. Edited down the more known ones for ease of reading: "Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations are ‘refuted’ Blasey and Kavanaugh ‘did not travel in the same social circles’ ‘I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out’ ‘The drinking age was 18 in Maryland’ ‘Boofs’ and ‘Devil’s Triangle’ ‘Renate Alumnius’ ‘No connections to Yale’ “I have no connections there,” Kavanaugh insisted regarding his ties to Yale University, where he went as an undergraduate and for law school. “I got there by busting my tail.” But his grandfather, Everett Edward Kavanaugh, went to Yale for undergrad. The Intercept dug up a copy of his grandfather’s yearbook, showing him as a student. Yale has said that 20 to 25 percent of its students are classified as legacy students. No one accused me of sexual misconduct ‘until last week’ Mark Judge’s memoir was ‘fictionalized' Judge Alex Kozinski Kavanaugh repeatedly denied knowing that Judge Alex Kozinski, a mentor for whom Kavanaugh clerked from 1991 to 1992, was a sex predator who harassed women in his office and maintained a private server in his offices for porn. William Pryor nomination William Pryor was nominated by President George W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in 2003. Pryor, a protege of now–Attorney General Jeff Sessions, was controversial for his views on abortion. Kavanaugh, who handled judicial nominations for the White House at that time, denied that he personally handled Pryor’s nomination when he was questioned during his appeals court confirmation hearings. “I was not involved in handling his nomination,” Kavanaugh said. “I am familiar generally with Mr. Pryor, but that was not one that I worked on personally.” But emails showed that Kavanaugh was consulted on Pryor’s nomination. Judge Charles Pickering Sr. nomination During Kavanaugh’s 2006 confirmation hearing for his seat on the D.C. Circuit, he was asked about his role in the Bush White House during the 2001 nomination of Charles Pickering Sr. to a seat on the 5th Circuit. Pickering had solicited letters of support for his nomination from lawyers who had business before his court in Mississippi. Kavanaugh was asked whether he knew about those letters of support. “My first question is this,” then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) asked Kavanaugh. “Did you know that Judge Pickering planned to solicit letters of support in this manner before he did so? And if not, when did you become aware that Judge Pickering had solicited these letters of support?” “The answer to the first question, Senator, is no,” Kavanaugh replied. “This was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling.” But recently disclosed emails show that Kavanaugh played a significant role in Pickering’s nomination process, which dragged on into 2004 because of a Democratic Party filibuster. Kavanaugh was often the only person included on emails about Pickering’s nomination and helped place op-eds and news stories to help the nominee. This doesn’t directly refute Kavanaugh’s statement that he wasn’t “primarily handling” the Pickering nomination. Feingold, however, believes he was misled at the time by Kavanaugh. “Taking all his testimony together, we see a clear pattern emerge: Brett Kavanaugh has never appeared under oath before the U.S. Senate without lying,” Feingold wrote Warrantless wiretapping When Kavanaugh was nominated to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006, he was asked whether he knew anything about the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping policy. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) pressed Kavanaugh on whether he had ever seen “documents relating to the president’s [National Security Agency] warrantless wiretapping program.” “I learned of that program when there was a New York Times story — reports of that program when there was a New York Times story that came over the wire, I think on a Thursday night in mid-December of [2005],” Kavanaugh said at the time. Emails that came out during Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing, however, tell a different story on both accounts. Stolen emails In 2003, Kavanaugh received information based on documents that were stolen from Senate Democrats by a Republican staffer. This included one fully copied stolen document. The documents provided inside information about Democrats’ strategy to oppose Bush’s judicial picks. Leahy, whose documents were stolen, asked Kavanaugh about this in 2006. He denied knowing the source of the information he received. Leahy returned to this question during Kavanaugh’s hearing last week ― this time with access to Kavanaugh’s emails from the time. One of those emails included the first draft of a memo composed by Leahy’s staff, although it was not labeled as such. Another came with a subject line of “Spying,” although this one simply suggested the author had a “mole” among Democrats providing intelligence on their strategy. Leahy pressed Kavanaugh on the draft memo, which he said was “obviously taken from my internal emails.” He asked, “Did any of this raise a red flag in your mind?” “It did not, Senator, because it all seemed consistent with the usual kind of discussions that happen,” Kavanaugh responded. As to the question of the “mole” email labeled “Spying,” Kavanaugh chalked it up to bipartisanship, saying, “There was a lot of bipartisanship among the staffs. There were a lot of friendships and relationships where people would talk to — ‘Oh, I’ve got a friend on Sen. Ted Kennedy’s staff’ or ‘I have a friend on Sen. Hatch’s staff or Sen. Specter’s staff.’ That kind of information sharing did not raise red flags.” Kavanaugh never apologized to Leahy about receiving or using the stolen documents. Leahy concluded, “It’s fair to say that he was not forthright with me, and I’m bothered by it.” Sucking up to Trump “No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination,” Kavanaugh said moments after President Donald Trump announced his nomination. Not only is this an impossible claim to prove ― one would have to review the details of every past president’s vetting process for every Supreme Court nominee ― but it certainly appears that Trump did next to no consulting on his court pick. He was given a list of possible nominees by the Federalist Society, a conservative group that has tremendous sway over Trump’s judicial nominees, and told to pick one. It took Trump two weeks to pick Kavanaugh from the list. For some contrast, President Barack Obama spent about a month reviewing his options before nominating Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the court. "
It's not autism; "A or not A" is a tautology, you utter moron. Take a course in logic. Like I said: you say whatever you think will get you the most traction at the time.
It does happen.. Dentists accused in Las Vegas resort rape case have charges against them dropped By Kathleen Joyce | Fox News Facebook Twitter Flipboard Comments Print Email From left to right: Saman Edalat, Sina Edalat, Ali Badoobehi and Poria Edalat. (Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department) Charges against four California dentists -- including three brothers -- accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a woman at a Las Vegas Strip resort were dropped after cellphone video showed the allegations were "completely fabricated," one of the men's attorney said. Prosecutors dropped the charges against Poria Edalat, 30, Saman Edalat, 39, Sina Edalat, 34, and Ali Badkoobehi, 30, after the defendants presented the video to the district attorney’s office, KVVU-TV reported. An unnamed woman told security at the Wynn Las Vegas resort she was sexually assaulted in a suite while intoxicated. Lawyers for the four dentists maintained all along the allegations were false. They predicted in August the case would be dropped once prosecutors reviewed the video evidence. CALIFORNIA WOMAN RECANTS SEX HARASSMENT CLAIMS MADE AGAINST DEM CONGRESSIONAL HOPEFUL "After a review of the facts of the case, it was clear the allegations were completely fabricated," Robert Draskovich, Badkoobehi’s attorney, said in a statement. "The evidence confirmed the men's innocence, and the state has cleared them of all charges." The dentists were already free on their own recognizance and none of them attended Monday’s hearing. The three Edalat brothers released a statement following the hearing. "We are so grateful to the justice system for recognizing that we were the victims in this case," the statement said. "We knew when the facts came out that the vicious allegations would be exposed as lies and our good names would be cleared. We want to thank our families, friends and lawyers for sticking by us through this horrific ordeal." CALIFORNIA WOMAN ‘FOUND ALIVE AND WELL’ AFTER REPORTED MISSING IN KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARK The statement added: "At this sensitive moment in our history, we believe that women should be respected and heard and believed. But as this case shows, it is also important to keep a critical eye on those willing to use the (#MeToo) movement for their own selfish motives and remember that innocent until proven guilty is one of our country's bedrock principles." The Associated Press contributed to this report.