FBI digs into U.S. Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh's past

[farcanell]

7 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

wow, you truly are delusional, she said or her lawyers that she could not attend a hearing until Thursday because she had to drive and had a fear of flying (an obvious delay tactic)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6235637/Ex-boyfriend-Christine-Ford-says-WASNT-afraid-flying-closed-spaces.html

and yes she coached a friend for an upcoming job interview

 

you are a desperate sad case, but as a democrat it is not a rare thing

 

Wow!

wow wow wow.

 

you supplied a link, but didn’t bother reading it... republican much?

 

On coaching a friend.... an FBI agent friend... this has been vehemently denied by the FBI agent

 

on driving delays... she flew, so no real delay due to her fear of flying.... fear vs inability... something to be avoided whenever possible by driving or training it, whenever possible

 

on your source... an embittered ex with an axe to grind.... an anonymous source... let him come forward and do a polygraph.

 

Lol... not reading your own links... priceless ????????????????

[mcambl61]

27 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Yes, the real world is sad at times.  However I prefer it to denial of reality.

You mean your own version of reality 

[mcambl61]

16 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Wow!

wow wow wow.

 

you supplied a link, but didn’t bother reading it... republican much?

 

On coaching a friend.... an FBI agent friend... this has been vehemently denied by the FBI agent

 

on driving delays... she flew, so no real delay due to her fear of flying.... fear vs inability... something to be avoided whenever possible by driving or training it, whenever possible

 

on your source... an embittered ex with an axe to grind.... an anonymous source... let him come forward and do a polygraph.

 

Lol... not reading your own links... priceless ????????????????

So disregard the statements of the ex boyfriend if it feeds your delusional irrational outlook. 

 

It must be painful in that skin of yours 

[farcanell]

22 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

So disregard the statements of the ex boyfriend if it feeds your delusional irrational outlook. 

 

It must be painful in that skin of yours 

 

Are you serious?

are you so lacking in evidence that this is your best?

how about we disregard an article that states an opinion, and a lie. ( specifically, your link)

 

Anyway.... as you went there, lets review the lie bit.... an unknown embittered ex of fords has made an uncorraborated statement, which you obviously believe..... yet an FBI agent has vehemently refuted the claim about coaching, but you disbelieve the FBI agent.

 

some of us delusional people will probably believe the FBI agent, which means that it’s safe to assume that the other allegation is false.... as kavanaugh acknowledged, under oath, a lie in one part equates to a lie in all parts ( it was said in Latin during the judicial committee evidentiary hearing... but don’t worry... it was translated during the process, so everyone could understand it)

 

anyway.... that’s the legalese of the matter.... simply put, once a liar, always a liar. (That would be your champion I reference)

 

never mind.... I don’t mind trolls.... but please.... you have to do better, as claiming to be afraid of flying, but still actually flying, is not actually lying.... just for you... if she had said that she can not fly, because of her ordeal, then did... well that would be a lie.

Edited October 4, 2018 by farcanell

[mcambl61]

18 minutes ago, farcanell said:

 

Are you serious?

are you so lacking in evidence that this is your best?

how about we disregard an article that states an opinion, and a lie. ( specifically, your link)

 

Anyway.... as you went there, lets review the lie bit.... an unknown embittered ex of fords has made an uncorraborated statement, which you obviously believe..... yet an FBI agent has vehemently refuted the claim about coaching, but you disbelieve the FBI agent.

 

some of us delusional people will probably believe the FBI agent, which means that it’s safe to assume that the other allegation is false.... as kavanaugh acknowledged, under oath, a lie in one part equates to a lie in all parts ( it was said in Latin during the judicial committee evidentiary hearing... but don’t worry... it was translated during the process, so everyone could understand it)

 

anyway.... that’s the legalese of the matter.... simply put, once a liar, always a liar. (That would be your champion I reference)

 

never mind.... I don’t mind trolls.... but please.... you have to do better, as claiming to be afraid of flying, but still actually flying, is not actually lying.... just for you... if she had said that she can not fly, because of her ordeal, then did... well that would be a lie.

right, so in your world, the ex boyfriends accounts that actually remember dates and places is not credible but the person who can not remember where or when something allegedly took place and was in FACT refuted by the people she says were there IS credible.

 

it must be tough for you to live, I am sorry for that and hope you get help

[mcambl61]

22 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Anyway.... as you went there, lets review the lie bit.... an unknown embittered ex of fords has made an uncorraborated statement, which you obviously believe..... yet an FBI agent has vehemently refuted the claim about coaching, but you disbelieve the FBI agent.

The person she was helping was not an agent, she was interviewing to be one, get it? how would the FBI ever know that?

 

here this may help you get over your irrational behaviour and it is funny

 

 

[heybruce]

47 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

You mean your own version of reality 

Versus Trumpian reality?  The reality defined by a habitual liar?  Yes, I think my version of reality is better.

[mcambl61]

Just now, heybruce said:

Versus Trumpian reality?  The reality defined by a habitual liar?  Yes, I think my version of reality is better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6dv6G1FWxk

 

 

this may help you with the ridiculous emotional left wing hysteria

 

and he is funny and factual

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6dv6G1FWxk

 

 

this may help you with the ridiculous emotional left wing hysteria

 

and he is funny and factual

Unlike some people, I don't get news or facts from youtube videos. 

 

Regarding "left wing hysteria"; hysterical people don't use referenced facts and post in complete, grammatically correct sentences.  Right wing nut cases are another matter.

[mcambl61]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Unlike some people, I don't get news or facts from youtube videos. 

 

Regarding "left wing hysteria"; hysterical people don't use referenced facts and post in complete, grammatically correct sentences.  Right wing nut cases are another matter.

you are heavily biased bruce, there is no way around it, your opinions are not facts.

 

you might learn something from Stephen Crowder, but it requires listening

[vinegarbase]

Judge Kavanaugh was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 30, 2006, after his nomination by President George W. Bush and his confirmation by the Senate. Before his appointment to the Court, Judge Kavanaugh served for more than five years in the White House for President George W. Bush. From July 2003 until May 2006, he was Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary to the President. From 2001 to 2003, he was Associate Counsel and then Senior Associate Counsel to the President. Judge Kavanaugh was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C., from 1997 to 1998 and again from 1999 to 2001. From 1994 to 1997 and for a period in 1998, Judge Kavanaugh was Associate Counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr. In 1992-93, Judge Kavanaugh was an attorney in the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States. In the October Term 1993, Judge Kavanaugh served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh previously clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (in 1991-92) and for Judge Walter Stapleton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (in 1990-91).

 

Yet only now is there a problem now right before he is set to be nominated to the Supreme Court. Yes, like I am going to believe that nonsense. 

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

you are heavily biased bruce, there is no way around it, your opinions are not facts.

 

you might learn something from Stephen Crowder, but it requires listening

I see, using logic and referenced facts is bias, while accusations supported by nothing but an angry ex-boyfriend is...what?

 

You might learn something from John Oliver, but since his comedy is based on well researched facts I doubt you will.  https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=john+oliver+kavanaugh&view=detail&mid=A673582BBCEF9060C712A673582BBCEF9060C712&FORM=VIRE

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, vinegarbase said:

Judge Kavanaugh was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 30, 2006, after his nomination by President George W. Bush and his confirmation by the Senate. Before his appointment to the Court, Judge Kavanaugh served for more than five years in the White House for President George W. Bush. From July 2003 until May 2006, he was Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary to the President. From 2001 to 2003, he was Associate Counsel and then Senior Associate Counsel to the President. Judge Kavanaugh was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C., from 1997 to 1998 and again from 1999 to 2001. From 1994 to 1997 and for a period in 1998, Judge Kavanaugh was Associate Counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr. In 1992-93, Judge Kavanaugh was an attorney in the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States. In the October Term 1993, Judge Kavanaugh served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh previously clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (in 1991-92) and for Judge Walter Stapleton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (in 1990-91).

 

Yet only now is there a problem now right before he is set to be nominated to the Supreme Court. Yes, like I am going to believe that nonsense. 

Yeah, pretty far fetched that women assaulted by Kavanaugh spent their lives putting the horrible memory behind them, until they learned that he was about to become a Supreme Court Justice and could influence women's rights for decades.

[mcambl61]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

I see, using logic and referenced facts is bias, while accusations supported by nothing but an angry ex-boyfriend is...what?

 

You might learn something from John Oliver, but since his comedy is based on well researched facts I doubt you will.  https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=john+oliver+kavanaugh&view=detail&mid=A673582BBCEF9060C712A673582BBCEF9060C712&FORM=VIRE

you are going to have to get over your false sense of intellectual and moral superiority.

or not......

 

I have tried to watch John Oliver, but hollywood leftists are not the shining example of objective fact based reporting

[mcambl61]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Yeah, pretty far fetched that women assaulted by Kavanaugh spent their lives putting the horrible memory behind them, until they learned that he was about to become a Supreme Court Justice and could influence women's rights for decades.

again, complete and total nonsense.

 

no facts, just an emotional irrational belief to justify an ideological zeal 

[farcanell]

21 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

The person she was helping was not an agent, she was interviewing to be one, get it? how would the FBI ever know that?

 

here this may help you get over your irrational behaviour and it is funny

 

 

 

Lmao....

 

the person who refuted the lies told by Fords embittered ex boyfriend, is a retired FB agent.

 

and... you ask “ how would the FBI know that”.... know what?

 

Anyway..... call me crazy, but I would believe a retired FBI agent over an embittered ex lover

 

I started watching your link... but on noticing it was 44 minutes long, I really can’t be bothered, given your total lack of providing constructive evidence to date, the apparent misogynistic title of this link and your lack of credible debating points so far

 

please note... if there is a point worth including, give me the minute mark, and I shall check that.

[Joe Mcseismic]

2 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

again, complete and total nonsense.

 

no facts, just an emotional irrational belief to justify an ideological zeal 

Pot, meet Kettle.....

[mcambl61]

3 minutes ago, farcanell said:

iven your total lack of providing constructive evidence to date, the apparent misogynistic title of this link and your lack of credible debating points so far

says the dude providing zero credible evidence that the Judge has in any way commited

any type of crime 

 

ZERO ACTUAL EVIDENCE

[farcanell]

1 minute ago, mcambl61 said:

says the dude providing zero credible evidence that the Judge has in any way commited

any type of crime 

 

ZERO ACTUAL EVIDENCE

 

I believe that credible testimony has been given, by a credible witness.... I would reference you to the judiciary committee hearing, in this.

 

i believe this credible testimony, under oath, begs for an investigation into the facts, as one of the two parties is incorrect. (Perjury)

 

investigation, with statements under oath, will provide evidence, that can then be used to determine whos testimony, under oath, is true.

 

obstructing this investigation of differing testimony ( by restricting its time or authority) is despicable, much like Trumps comments about Ford and other women.

 

your childish debating style of “nah uh”.... “nah uh” is... well... childish... I (and others) have given you ample chances to back up your assertions and you repeatly fail to come up with anything adult... including the use of your logic and deductive faculties, so..... hey... carry on and continue to demonstrate that unreasoning following of trump... the rest of the world really needs to see this phenomenon .

 

[mcambl61]

39 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I see, using logic and referenced facts is bias, while accusations supported by nothing but an angry ex-boyfriend is...what?

 

You might learn something from John Oliver, but since his comedy is based on well researched facts I doubt you will.  https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=john+oliver+kavanaugh&view=detail&mid=A673582BBCEF9060C712A673582BBCEF9060C712&FORM=VIRE

i did learn from john oliver, another john stewart left wing disciple:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlHo-F1z_aw

 

[mcambl61]

2 minutes ago, farcanell said:

your childish debating style of “nah uh”.... “nah uh” is... well... childish... I (and others) have given you ample chances to back up your assertions and you repeatly fail to come up with anything adult... , including the use of your logic and deductive faculties, so..... hey... carry on and continue to demonstrate that unreasoning following of trump... the rest of the world really needs to see this phenomenon

AGAIN, zero actual fact based evidence.

 

He will be appointed. the tactics have failed, and they will backfire

horrendously. Even people who do not support trump are embarrassed

to see what has been tried by the dems.

 

YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE just raw unchecked biased emotions

 

 

[farcanell]

57 minutes ago, vinegarbase said:

Yet only now is there a problem now right before he is set to be nominated to the Supreme Court. Yes, like I am going to believe that nonsense. 

???????????? how often had you heard trumps pussy grabbing comments prior to 2016?

 

And...  all that workplace history about Kav was entered into judicial committee evidence, repetitively, by both republican inquisitors and the Kav.... repetitively... and even as answers to questions that had nothing to do with his education..

 

Mr Kav, did you....?

yes... I got into Yale.... it was very hard.

ok... but did ....?

then Yale law... Im smart

ok... but...

(chairman)....your out of time.... next.

 

meanwhile... Blasey ford had an equally impressive educational pedigree, reviewed by the committee prior to her questioning, then not mentioned again by her, or others. She did not hide behind anything, was open and forthright about everything.... but not the Kav.... he went to Yale law... he knows when not to give an answer.

Edited October 4, 2018 by farcanell

[farcanell]

14 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

AGAIN, zero actual fact based evidence.

 

He will be appointed. the tactics have failed, and they will backfire

horrendously. Even people who do not support trump are embarrassed

to see what has been tried by the dems.

 

YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE just raw unchecked biased emotions

 

 

???????????? being non American probably means I don’t have a raw and unchecked bias, as domestic Supreme Court issues wont effect me.

 

but biased, certainly, as I see this as an appalling misuse and abuse of power by the WH, which is becoming a trend that is impacting the world.

 

kavanaughs appointment, without a full investigation, as may happen tonight, undermines the USA’s reputation as a first world progressive democracy.... it undermines my countries alliance with the USA... ergo it undermines me

 

therefore.... rather than bs about raw emotion etc and bias and who is and who is not a democrat... as seems to be you at your best.... how about considering calling for a full investigation, for the sake of transparency and world confidence, and then act on the evidence unearthed during the investigation.

 

make America great again.... by restoring world confidence in your leadership.... because your leadership is a laughing stock, as is this debacle.

[zaphod reborn]

7 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

?

 

you mean like the federal judges appointed that want to legislate from the bench instead of interpreting it based on the constitution, law as it is written and precedents?

 

you mean like when Harry Reid changed the rules of the senate to 51 votes so they could pack the courts with federal courts with liberal judges, like that kind of political operatives?

 

be honest about what you are saying

A political operatve is someone who has worked directly for a candidate for public office or a political party.  Harry Reid was never a judge. so I don't understand why you brought him up.  If you knew anything about constitutional law, you would know that the Constitution is a living document.  When it was drafted 221 years ago, the drafters knew it would need to be flexible to deal with unseen future events.  I'm sure the drafters would be jaw-droppingly shocked that it was still in existence over 200 years later.

 

By way of example, in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), SCOTUS struck down a ban on contraceptive devices sold to married couples based on a right of privacy.  The Court created a right of privacy based on "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections (5th, 9th and 14th amendments).  I think most Americans strongly believe in a right of privacy free from governmental intrusion, and it just wasn't a right the founding fathers specifically set forth in writing. 

 

Kavanaugh worked directly for Bush.  He also worked directly for Ken Starr, who resigned from Baylor Univ. for covering up the NCAA's largest sexual assault scandal.  Kavanaugh testified about a Clinton conspiracy to defame him and derail his entitlement to promotion to SCOTUS.

 

When it comes to judges, we can allow federal district judges to have stronger political views.  It took 3 years for Kavanaugh to get Senate confirmation when Bush nominated him to the DC Circuit.  He was considered too partisan for the federal bench and his rating was downgraded by the ABA during the confirmation process.  SCOTUS should not have political operatives because we want the High Court to be free of politics.

 

The only major political operative to be elevated to SCOTUS was Abe Fortas.  Abe Fortas was nominated by LBJ as a political favor and his Senate confirmation was highly contested due to an ethics violation.  Hoover came to an agreement that Fortas would resign in exchange for an agreement not to prosecute 4 years later.  

Edited October 4, 2018 by zaphod reborn

[Morch]

8 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

I would like to see your demeanor in front of the entire nation defending yourself against some vile unfounded accusations that threaten to destroy your entire life and family.

 

it was a setup engineered in advance, unless you are blind to the timelines and actions

 

I am not a candidate for a life-time appointment for the US Supreme Court. Kavanaugh is. It is not as if he walked into this process with no idea of what it involves, or the prevalent political atmosphere. Also, other candidates, even ones nominated by Trump, managed the ordeal with a somewhat more fitting modicum. A US Supreme Court judge is supposed to be better than that. Regardless of one's opinion regarding the accusations, his demeanor and lies during the hearing ought to render him unfit as a candidate, never mind appointed.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

you are going to have to get over your false sense of intellectual and moral superiority.

or not......

 

I have tried to watch John Oliver, but hollywood leftists are not the shining example of objective fact based reporting

A sense of intellectual superiority comes easily when debating someone who makes claims without sources.

 

So you think Canadian conservative comedians are educational but a comedian who has won multiple awards for well-researched fact based comedy is not? 

 

BTW, I never called John Oliver a reporter.  Where did you get that idea?

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

i did learn from john oliver, another john stewart left wing disciple:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlHo-F1z_aw

 

What is this link supposed to prove?

[Slip]

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

What is this link supposed to prove?

That you should skip over this poster's 'contributions'? 

[farcanell]

8 minutes ago, Slip said:

That you should skip over this poster's 'contributions'? 

They really need a “lump of gold” emoticon.