Don't know if the Ramirez pic has been posted yet, but if so it can't hurt to post it again.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/us/politics/deborah-ramirez-brett-kavanaugh-allegations.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

BTHOB said:

---

I am about 99% certain at this point that Kavanaugh will NOT be confirmed. Amazing, frightening, and sad what baseless accusations without any hard evidence can accomplish.

---

So you will give me what odds? 99:1? 9:1?

I'll take that bet.

blindey said:

---

BTHOB said:

---

I am about 99% certain at this point that Kavanaugh will NOT be confirmed. Amazing, frightening, and sad what baseless accusations without any hard evidence can accomplish.

---

Then you are an idiot and you are playing into the democrats hands. Take a deep breath, realize that this is all crazy, fabricated nonsense, and you will be fine.

---

If you can't see the writing on the wall then you are the idiot. Perhaps, you didn't comprehend that I am fully aware this is all crazy, fabricated nonsense. In fact, that is why the result is amazing, frightening, and sad.

And, yes, I will be fine.

COAg15 said:

---

SIAP, but this WSJ headline just makes me so f'ing angry.

"Third Woman Makes Allegations Against Nominee Kavanaugh

---

WSJ "news" side is as liberal as any national news outlet like CNN, NBC, NYT, etc.

WSJ "opinion page" is conservative.

When people say WSJ is conservative, they are only talking about the opinion page.

aginlakeway said:

---

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

---

That's because she is not accusing him of sexual assault.

---

But that's the problem, which some people worried about at the time (I wasn't one of them, but now I see the point), in Kav giving the interview. If you stick just to a blanket denial, then a sworn statement that you were drunk and acting a fool doesn't do as much damage.

But when you state that you were a virgin, then claims of your presence at drunken parties where there was alleged to be group sex hurts your credibility.

We'll see how this plays out, but I now wonder if Kav would have been better off not giving the interview.

COAg15 said:

---

SIAP, but this WSJ headline just makes me so f'ing angry.

"Third Woman Makes Allegations Against Nominee Kavanaugh

Julie Swetnick described in an affidavit Brett Kavanaugh's behavior at parties while he was at high school and alleges she was drugged and raped at a party where the Supreme Court nominee was present in 1982. "


What a misleading freaking headline. It's infuriating because every general person will just assume that HE was the one that did all this.

---

All part of the plan. The WSJ is anti-Trump and has been since day 1.

aginlakeway said:

---

BTHOB said:

---

I am about 99% certain at this point that Kavanaugh will NOT be confirmed. Amazing, frightening, and sad what baseless accusations without any hard evidence can accomplish.

---

So you will give me what odds? 99:1? 9:1?

I'll take that bet.

---

Unfortunately, I am not the betting kind. I will be happy to eat crow if I am proven incorrect. But, I am about 99% certain that will not happen.

CNN reporting now. Talked about the drinking, grinding, inappropriate behavior, etc.

Have avoided the drugging, train/ gang rapes so far. Odd, that part really stood out to me.


edit: just said only reporting portions before they're still "vetting" other portions

BTHOB said:

---

blindey said:

---

BTHOB said:

---

I am about 99% certain at this point that Kavanaugh will NOT be confirmed. Amazing, frightening, and sad what baseless accusations without any hard evidence can accomplish.

---

Then you are an idiot and you are playing into the democrats hands. Take a deep breath, realize that this is all crazy, fabricated nonsense, and you will be fine.

---

If you can't see the writing on the wall then you are the idiot. Perhaps, you didn't comprehend that I am fully aware this is all crazy, fabricated nonsense. In fact, that is why the result is amazing, frightening, and sad.

And, yes, I will be fine.

---

I hate to agree, but I suspect you're right. Enough spineless Republicans will run away from the nomination.

hbtheduce said:

---

Also its completely possible that boys were grinding, grabbing, and flirting with these girls consensually. All attendees knew the punch was strongly spiked, and the line was for the bathroom, not to run a train on rich highly educated women...

But I believe her!

---

Yep. I remember going to Shadow Canyon when I was at A&M and just walking out on the dance floor would and would have a girl rubbing he ass on my crotch within a few notes. The truth that nobody is going to admit is that the girls love the attention.

BTHOB said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

BTHOB said:

---

I am about 99% certain at this point that Kavanaugh will NOT be confirmed. Amazing, frightening, and sad what baseless accusations without any hard evidence can accomplish.

---

So you will give me what odds? 99:1? 9:1?

I'll take that bet.

---

Unfortunately, I am not the betting kind. I will be happy to eat crow if I am proven incorrect. But, I am about 99% certain that will not happen.

---

99 percent is WAY to high ...

Agree to disagree.

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Sworn detailed statements from her about gang rape by Judge and Kavanaugh.

---

I read this entire statement. At no point does she name ANY witnesses that can corroborate any statement other than say she knows some people. Her claim is based 100% on that Kavanagh and Judge were AT a party or two where bad things supposedly happened, but she does not claim he was a participant.

SHE NEVER CLAIMS HE PARTICIPATED IN ANY ASSULT.

---

If that's a recent picture she has aged really well and for sure wood but would make her sign a consent form first.

Honestly, if he really was part of gang bangs and his friend, Judge, admits that he was a part of it, he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

I don't care if trump nominates someone else socially conservative, this guy shouldn't be on ONLY IF This Judge guy admits to this sort of culture m

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Honestly, if he really was part of gang bangs and his friend, Judge, admits that he was a part of it, he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

I don't care if trump nominates someone else socially conservative, this guy shouldn't be on ONLY IF This Judge guy admits to this sort of culture m

---

And you are THAT naive to believe he was??? Can you really not see what all this is for?? Really

If ????

drcrinum said:

---

---

I love how he is basically calling CPL's bluff. Go ahead, call the FBI and file a report, here's the list of all the field offices.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Honestly, if he really was part of gang bangs and his friend, Judge, admits that he was a part of it, he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

I don't care if trump nominates someone else socially conservative, this guy shouldn't be on ONLY IF This Judge guy admits to this sort of culture m

---

If gang-bangs are consentual (and yes, some girls do this), then who cares. Obviously, if they were not consentual, then it is a crime.

Click the link to read the Tyler v Carter case. It is worth the read.

Swetnick is a loon, and Avenatti is scum for using her.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Honestly, if he really was part of gang bangs and his friend, Judge, admits that he was a part of it, he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

I don't care if trump nominates someone else socially conservative, this guy shouldn't be on ONLY IF This Judge guy admits to this sort of culture m

---

IF he is guilty, he should be gone.

But the timing of all of this ... I will be SHOCKED if he were guilty. It's a 100% smear job, IMO ...

A little subtlety would go a long way for the Left. Instead the allegations become ridiculous. Were gang rapes the norm at DC house parties in the 80's? This is sounding more and more like some kind of spin of Risky Business, but here the "screenwriters" have substituted private school girls for the hookers in the movie.

Maybe Avenatti stumbled onto one of Stormy Daniels old scripts (as much as that crap is scripted), threw a little money around, and here we are.

I realize the Dems hope to control the Senate and consequently not have to make crap up to fight another nomination, but what if the Republicans hold the Senate? The left has spent a lot of ammunition on this nomination....imagine if Thomas retires and RBG passes... what will the allegations be should
Trump get two nominations for the Supreme Court?


edit: gramar/sloppy edits

[img][/img]

mugwurt said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Honestly, if he really was part of gang bangs and his friend, Judge, admits that he was a part of it, he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

I don't care if trump nominates someone else socially conservative, this guy shouldn't be on ONLY IF This Judge guy admits to this sort of culture m

---

If gang-bangs are consentual (and yes, some girls do this), then who cares. Obviously, if they were not consentual, then it is a crime.

---

Didn't he just say he was a virgin?

Posting fail.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

mugwurt said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Honestly, if he really was part of gang bangs and his friend, Judge, admits that he was a part of it, he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

I don't care if trump nominates someone else socially conservative, this guy shouldn't be on ONLY IF This Judge guy admits to this sort of culture m

---

If gang-bangs are consentual (and yes, some girls do this), then who cares. Obviously, if they were not consentual, then it is a crime.

---

Didn't he just say he was a virgin?

---

I was speaking in general terms.