The one thing the Kavanaugh nomination has shown

It has certainly brought some of the Feminazi crowd out of the wood work ... saying "women should be believed regardless of the evidence and the man should not be given due process".

And I am not even exaggerating. Even some of the left wing MSM has been pushing back slightly on this extremist narrative - just to show you how extreme these people are.


That said - if it was just the one accusation I think Kavanaugh would have stood a good chance. Even with the second accusation he still might have had a chance as even the accuser admits it was all a drunken haze.

This third accusation is more serious and (from what I have heard so far) and seems to have more corroborating evidence which IMO will result in the Kavanaugh nomination being dead in the water - regardless of whether or not this third charge has any basis in fact.

At minimum it will stall the hearings until after the midterms.

 

Okay first of the third one is Avenatti even his partners don't Trust Avenatti Hell Stormy fired his ass.

 

There are only 2 accusers by name

The 3rd may not even exist

 

No. you go find them. I have no doubt there was opposition to Garland but I anxiously await your showing me where any republicans tried to destroy Garlands life in any way, shape, or form.

 

Avenatti did not lie in relation to Stormy and there it is a bit preposterous to suggest that he is bald face lying about his current clients.

Regardless - we should know by the end of Wednesday so there is no point in beating this dead horse. I believe that these people he claims to exist - exist - and more information will come out soon.

 

Personally, I hope the Dems trot out 3-4 more women with the same - 'I don't remember when, where or who" accusations -- the GOP might keep the house.

 

You might have a point if Gorsuch was the nominee involved in all this.
He's not, so you don't.

 

You want to set this aside because you know there isn't any.

 

Oh my goodness...they were sitting in the audience...the HORROR. Its totally the same as using people to make up stories, compared to those women who were legitimately abused.

 

CBF asked for the FBI to investigate her claims. My understanding is that it is not uncommon for the FBI to re-open background checks on nominees as it is deemed appropriate. CBF and her lawyers reason that it would be better to look at common findings rather than the Hill/Thomas she said/he said circus from the early nineties. Imagine that? Common findings!

The FBI will not get involved without express request from the White House since BK is Trump's nominee, but the WH refuses. We can argue around credible allegations until the cows come home, but the allegations mount, and the GOP/WH doesn't want to learn more. *cough cough Judge* I think there is plenty of evidence of general shittiness in the story to warrant at least that. Trump will always line up behind sexual predators because, well, he IS ONE. The message the GOP is sending women is that locker room talk, sexual misconduct beneath the veil of age or inebriation is A-OK, and especially that entitlement is a birthright.

Like I said, you guys need a smaller echo chamber. Carry on.

 

What it has shown is that people like McConnell could care less about putting a sexual deviant on our Supreme Court as long as the GOP gets it's way.

 

The FBI investigates nominees backgrounds for national security risks; the accusation at hand does not quality.
It is also not an alleged violation of federal law, as was the Hill/Thomas issue.

None of this precludes Ford from testifying as to what she knows, and she can only testify as to what she knows.

The fact she cannot tell us when, where, or the name of anyone who has not already said they have no idea what she's talking about should stand on its own - and would, if Kavanaugh was Hillary's nominee.

 

That would not be a back ground check it would be a criiminal investigation and again the FBI has no jurisdiction in the matter of a local juvenile crime. All the relevant witness have been question by a bevy of Reporters and others all of them have said it did not happen.

 

Um Stormy fired him because she thought he was just using her, given her line of work she is probably an expert on being used.

 

First Avenatti not being a DA can't file a criminal case though being an ambulance chasing scum bag he may well file a civil suit but he needs to put up or shut up PDQ.

 

It may get him some gigs on MSNBC and CNN and a few dollars in his pocket

 

Which is probably what the scum bag is after anyway. He's probably wanting to land a gig as a legal advisor, sort of the MSNBC answer to Judge Napolitano minus any gavitas at all.

 

right .. so what does this have to do with whether or not he is being truthful in relation to the latest allegations ?

 

If he really found it compelling there would already be a case filed.

 

As said previously we will see - probably by the end of tomorrow.

 

And yet Hillary Clinton still won the popular vote for president of the united states, indicating that a significant portion of the united states public is likely willing to believe the presented narrative.

 

Yet the overwhelming majority of them live In CA.

 

Votes and voters are dynamic, always changing depending on events. And the events that have occurred since the 2016 election should indicate dems have not changed, the media is lying more than it did, and Trump is gaining support.

Steve

 

And yet it was demonstrated in the time leading up to the election that Hillary Clinton was inherently dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent, and yet she still won the popular vote. Indicating the majority of the united states public does not actually care about matters of facts and truth.

 

You or anyone else didn't ask each individual voter why they voted the way they did,

It is more evident today than 2016 that media is lying to you whether it is "news" or polling. By the media's OWN POLLING, the media now has the lowest level of TRUST by the people in HISTORY.

Steve