CNN's Jim Acosta has press pass suspended

That's a different question. His buddy didn't defend him either.

"grew up in a city plagued by gun violence..."
"reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us…It was not related to sex.."
"refers to flatualnce..."
"Drinking game"
"weak stomach.."
"Never blacked out"
"refuted by people she says were there.."
memogate
detention and interrogation
Easy rider gag list

Blatant lying under oath should be a pretty simple disqualification for a Supreme Court justice no matter what it's about.

She has to pay for security and moving expenses, she has to deal with death threats from psycho trumpers. The rest it seems will go to charity. This is not a person that "tries little stunts" we have seen how quickly those people are easily ferreted out. You have to desperately desperately want to believe she is making this up to even imagine she would be.

 

This is the nature of the crime. All that was said was they don't remember. And brett's witnesses couldn't corroborate his story either. And the repubs buried the investigation.

Lol, every one of those was absolutely an unquestioned lie. And super stupid ones at that.. .I mean boofing??? Seriously, how desperate do you have to be to believe this idiot to buy into that... flatulence?? Really??

 

There it is.

 

Lol, a measely mil huh? You really think a millionaire would go through all of that, deal with death threats from psycho trumpers for a simple mil? You really buy into this nonsense convoluted plan? What are we to make of the fact that brett made almost as much?

 

No it's not and yes he did.

What did she produce to corroborate her accusation, which witness corroborated her accusations.

Where's the perjury, differences of opinion do not constitute perjury and they must be of a material matter. And most were confirmed by witnesses.

There was no blatant lying and certainly about nothing material.

When did she announce the money would go to charity? Link. I don't know what she did but her story was not true as desperately as you are trying to claim it was. And I could care less about his high school drinking and teen-age boy behavior. He made a fool out of Senator Whitehouse who did try to make an issue of it. I out his 40 years of public service, HONORABLE public service without a hint of scandal, without a single accusation of bad behavior and hundreds of women who worked with him and for him above anything the Democrats tried to smear him with from his days in high school.

 

No they said they were never at such a party, even her BBF forever said it didn't happen. The only person who had memory problems was Ford herself who couldn't even remember significant events from just weeks past.

They are absolutely questionable and of no merit.
Kavanaugh: I liked beer and drank a lot.
Claim: No you drank a WHOLE lot.

Give me a break........PERJURY?

 

brett's yearbook: Hey brett! heard you fingerbanged katie while she was sleeping, right on man!
brett: Uhhh, that was an expression of friendship where we made our fingers into guns and said bang to each other
you: Hey man... that's just a difference of opinion, you have no proof what that means. Jessica let katie stay at her house to avoid the mobs of people trying to stone her, but clearly her plan all along was just to get at jessica's mac and cheese.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I never thought it was that serious

 

Nothing perjurious in differences of opinion and nothing of any material value to his stellar record as a man, a family man, a service to his community or a judge.

 

Lying unambiguously (especially) about nothing is absolutely perjurioius. This isn't a difference of opinion(which is where the desperately wrong always scurry to).
I've not noticed any men on the right besides John McCain, but brett was absolutely a terrible example of one.
I've not noticed service to be a value on the right of late except to one's self.

 

Doesn't it bother you that the bar for serving at the highest offices of government is always: They are republicans and there is a "reasonable doubt" that they aren't guilty of a horrible crime?

 

You know your case is pretty weak when you start quoting 30 year old high School year books written by 16 and 17 year olds for an impeachment hearing. Now thats rich.

I find it just as amazing you can't find any service of value from 2001 to 2006, Kavanaugh worked under former President George W. Bush as assistant, staff secretary, and senior associate counsel to the president and he was nominated to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, where he has served since 2006.

 

... 5 years under one of the worst presidents ever?

 

Has nothing to do with the mans service to this country

 

Riiiiiight service, is that important to you guys?

 

There is not even reasonable suspicion. Doesn't it bother you that Democrats want to destroy the lives of people when there is not even reasonable suspicion?

So did you support the impeachment and removal of Clinton? There was prima facie evidence of his committing felonies in a case where the weight of the evidence showed he committed sexual harassment and sexual assault AS GOVERNOR, not as a HIGH SCHOOL student.

 

Yes, I did.

 

Let me clarify a little bit. Clinton is a huge piece of s*** he should be raked over the coals many many times. To be fair, he was a relatively effective president, so as president, I probably wouldn't support impeachment today (even though I very much did then, and I don't really support impeaching trump right now unless there is a bombproof case), but if there were a hearing before he was appointed his office, I would 100% say he was disqualified.

 

Plus, we aren't even getting into his draft dodging cowardly shadiness. He was and still is a monumental tower of garbage. Draft dodgers deserve to occupy every second of hell their replacements earned (the one time I wish there was a hell).

 

Firstly, I am not embarrassing myself. I am soing the exact opposite. I am not wearing bullshit fabric the White House spin doctors are weaving, something which seems beyond you and others. I saw what I saw. Did Trump say "here we go" when Acosta was not more than a few seconds into his question? Yes/no. Did Donald then interrupt Acosta so there was an argy bargy/back and forth about what the word "invasion" meant. Yes/No. Out of the blue, did not Donald then lecture Acosta about "letting him run the Country and he can run CNN." Yes/no. At that point, did he not say, "That's enough?" Yes/No. At that point, did not that woman make a grab for, get hold of the mic jerk down to take it from Acosta , but fail? Yes/No. Did Acosta then ask Donald a further question? Yes/No. Did Donald not answer it? Yes/No. Did Acosa ultimately let the female have the mic? Yes/No. Did the next Journmo then make some comment supportive of Acosta? Yes/No. Did Donald then abuse him by saying words to the effect "I don't think much of you either?" Yes/No. Did Donald, after the next Journo had the mic, turn back to Acosta and lecture him about being rude, what CNN ought to do with him and how he was nasty and mean to Huckabee? Yes/No. Did he not then re-engage with the next Journo (the aforseaid bloke with the mic) and make some derisive sarcastic comment about "You're the best?" Yes/No. Latyer at the same Presser on at least two occasions, did separate Journos retain the mic and ask further questions which Donald answered even though Donald had said "Next" or "That's enough?" Yes/No. When you accept the facts as they clearly were, we can the debate what conclusions to draw.

Secondly, tell me what the First Amendment means? The USA can not have it both ways. It cannot credibly present itself to the Planet, proudly chest beating, hand on heart, passionately singing the Anthem as a bastion and exemplar of Freedom of the Press while at the same time seek to, and actively suppress the Press, and also blatantly have a sinsiter undertone that the Press is the 'enemy of the people,' can it?

 

Gawd, are you lot still sweating over what must have been the most trivial waft like brushing of hand to arm. Watch the viedo, either version. You will see that the female's arm bends as she pulls down, having gripped the mic, to get the mic out of Acosta's right hand, not because of some vicious Bruce Lee karate chop to her arm. That is the simple physiological fact. Fair bloody dinkum, is there no wafer thin and brittle straw you fellas will not grasp at?

 

As to the contact, that part is actually not my big deal. It was not severe. But Acosta has a lousy attitude.

 

HE did not dodge the draft. When Congress created the draft law, they included language to explain the law. Trump followed the law. There seems to be this idea that all men had to be drafted. The law is not like that.

 

Donald set the tone of that exchange within seconds of Acosta starting his question with the snide remark....'Here we go.' Thus Donald shot first, and he had serve returned. He lost. And, as I have said to others, I have no dog in this fight. I am Australian in Australia and until this incident, I knew nothing of and had never heard of Acosta. I no nothing of any alleged attitude. I come to this discussion with zero baggage, prejudice or bias.

 

I was talking about clinton. But of course trup is even lower, trump is a piece of dung on clintons shoe