US Politics

How are they actually going to sort this out one way or the other?
It was a long time ago, both sides adamant in their side of things. No physical evidence, any witnesses are subject to the fog of memory.

Difficult.
 
He's making a huge error in making this so long and saying so much. He's given the Dem's an absolute tonne of claims to refute.
 
Sandikan said:
How are they actually going to sort this out one way or the other?
It was a long time ago, both sides adamant in their side of things. No physical evidence, any witnesses are subject to the fog of memory.

Difficult.
Click to expand...


and in 5 minute blocks.

Absolute sham.
 
Can't get that calendar shit. Why is this even relevant when a party usually has more than two people? Isn't it determined already who was present ?
 
Mr H said:
And moreover, how is 'I worked with several women and I never assaulted them' a defense.
Click to expand...

Loads of women met Ted Bundy and he didn't kill those particular ones, he must not be a murderer.
 
Susan's about to mother him through this.
 
Sandikan said:
How are they actually going to sort this out one way or the other?
It was a long time ago, both sides adamant in their side of things. No physical evidence, any witnesses are subject to the fog of memory.

Difficult.
Click to expand...
He said She said which this has been brought down to is never a good way to find out guilt.
 
"If the calendar doesn't fit, you must...Chewbacca."
 
Sandikan said:
How are they actually going to sort this out one way or the other?
It was a long time ago, both sides adamant in their side of things. No physical evidence, any witnesses are subject to the fog of memory.

Difficult.
Click to expand...

No idea.

If this was a court case he'd obviously win easily. I'm not sure what the burden of proof is in this scenario though. I think he likely did it but is "likely" enough? All very ugly.
 
He can't remember her from high-school, but he remembers not being in the party. Right.
 
SteveJ said:
Nobody's falling for this contrived, desperate schtick, are they? If so, I have a bridge in Nambia to sell you.

A minute after the hearing, Kavanaugh will be saying to a colleague that 'tv audiences lap that shit up'.
Click to expand...
Yep. It’s the most obvious sham I’ve ever seen. I don’t understand people who can look at that and think ‘there’s an honest man worthy of a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.’
 
I understand why he may be upset whether guilty or not - but putting that aside - why vilify the left so dramatically if at the same time you are trying to claim you should be on the nation's highest court where you (in theory anyway) are asked to observe the law in a non-partisan fashion? Seems he could have scored a ton of points by getting above that.

Oh boy and now he s raging. Stable genius.
 
sullydnl said:
No idea.

If this was a court case he'd obviously win easily. I'm not sure what the burden of proof is in this scenario though. All very ugly.
Click to expand...
It's just a question of how shameless republicans can be. And those are depths that are yet to be plumbed.
 
Redplane said:
I understand why he may be upset whether guilty or not - but putting that aside - why vilify the left so dramatically if at the same time you are trying to claim you should be on the nation's highest court where you (in theory anyway) are asked to observe the law in a non-partisan fashion? Seems he could have scored a ton of points by getting above that.
Click to expand...
There’s not even a pretence that the court is non-political anymore.
 
It's an outrage that I couldn't come forward right away. Do all the accused that come before him in court get there trail next day without the prosecution being able to investigate?
 
'the Swetnick thing is a joke'...

So why are the other 2 cases not a joke?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.