Trump's SCOTUS

[Speaker to Animals]

This one could blow up in republicans' faces.

First of all, the initial story seemed deliberately flawed. Now you have dumbass republicans attacking the story on ridiculously thin grounds such as:

-- The alleged victim was drunk and couldn't remember exactly who thrust his penis upon her at the party.

-- There is only one person who accuses Kavenaugh of being the guy who did it.

What exactly happens if this woman does come out and give testimony? What happens if somebody else who was at that party also claims that Kavenaugh thrust his penis on to this drunk woman?

Republicans are fucking stupid. I swear to God they just walk right into this shit.

[The Conservative]

This one could blow up in republicans' faces.

First of all, the initial story seemed deliberately flawed. Now you have dumbass republicans attacking the story on ridiculously thin grounds such as:

-- The alleged victim was drunk and couldn't remember exactly who thrust his penis upon her at the party.

-- There is only one person who accuses Kavenaugh of being the guy who did it.

What exactly happens if this woman does come out and give testimony? What happens if somebody else who was at that party also claims that Kavenaugh thrust his penis on to this drunk woman?

Republicans are fucking stupid. I swear to God they just walk right into this shit.

Did you read either of the links? Or are you just enjoying bloviating?

From the NY Times link:

Some readers have argued that the latest accusation against Mr. Kavanaugh was too weak to appear in The Times. Given that the woman who was said to be involved in the incident refused to be interviewed, and her friends have said she doesn’t remember what happened, why did you include that accusation in the essay?

DAO: The essay included a previously unreported claim that friends pushed Mr. Kavanaugh’s penis into the hand of a female Yale student during a dorm party with drunken classmates. During the authors’ investigation, they learned that a classmate, Max Stier, witnessed the event and later reported it to senators and to the F.B.I. The authors corroborated his story with two government officials, who said they found it credible. Based on that corroboration, we felt mentioning the claim as one part of a broader essay was warranted.

My FEELZ!

The Times has since deleted and apologized for an offensive tweet that published with this essay from the Opinion desk’s Twitter account. Can you say anything more about how such an inappropriate tweet went out, and what, if anything, is being done to prevent that from happening again?

DAO: The Opinion section, like other parts of The Times, has a process for writing and editing social media copy. In this case, the process was not followed properly, resulting in a tweet that fell well below our standards. The department is reviewing with everyone involved — including me — what went wrong to determine how we can avoid similar mistakes.

We dun fucked up and got kaught... sorie!

[Speaker to Animals]

So you discount the allegation because NYT made an incendiary tweet at Trump.

That's really special.


Not a damned thing to do with my argument, but reading comprehension was never your thing.

[The Conservative]

So you discount the allegation because NYT made an incendiary tweet at Trump.

That's really special.


Not a damned thing to do with my argument, but reading comprehension was never your thing.

You mean your spamming of the topic again? Things you accuse others of all the time? Ok... What part doesn't have to do with anything you posted?

The part that the "story" is based on an unpublished book? Do you think this just got the book on the top 10 on the Best Seller's list? Come on you can't be that daft not to see the reasoning behind this. I bet if you did the three degrees of separation, you'd see the original writer of the "essay" and the person who wrong the book know each other.

The fact that this will now be on the top 10, and that a book that would probably have been ignored will now be given more credence because of the BS that the NY Times pushed outright.

The story is flawed because of many reasons, and it is designed that way to make the Republicans defend the position so that people will go out and read the book to see what all the BS is about. The fact that democrat politicians have already jumped onboard give the story more legs because of the #IBelieveHer and other hashtags out there.

This is all about getting a book sold, and sulling a sitting justice's reputation in the process, it's as simple as that, and if you can't see it, I can't help you.

[clubgop]

This one could blow up in republicans' faces.

First of all, the initial story seemed deliberately flawed. Now you have dumbass republicans attacking the story on ridiculously thin grounds such as:

-- The alleged victim was drunk and couldn't remember exactly who thrust his penis upon her at the party.

-- There is only one person who accuses Kavenaugh of being the guy who did it.

What exactly happens if this woman does come out and give testimony? What happens if somebody else who was at that party also claims that Kavenaugh thrust his penis on to this drunk woman?

Republicans are fucking stupid. I swear to God they just walk right into this shit.

It won't, we know this is the gang that can't shoot straight, the gift that keeps on giving. The blackout drunk girl will remain blackout drunk and there are no other coraborating witnesses. Same weak shit as ever. A year ago you wanted CBF prosecuted for perjury but you think this college fairytale has legs? Libs are making this a yearly tradition the festival of Kavanaugh followed by the airing of false accusations. This is stupid this is dumb they retracted the story and left out important details. No one believes these people anymore. They could have video and if it is this cast of characters there is no reason to believe them. RBG must be really sick or liberals want to fundraise.

[Speaker to Animals]

This one could blow up in republicans' faces.

First of all, the initial story seemed deliberately flawed. Now you have dumbass republicans attacking the story on ridiculously thin grounds such as:

-- The alleged victim was drunk and couldn't remember exactly who thrust his penis upon her at the party.

-- There is only one person who accuses Kavenaugh of being the guy who did it.

What exactly happens if this woman does come out and give testimony? What happens if somebody else who was at that party also claims that Kavenaugh thrust his penis on to this drunk woman?

Republicans are fucking stupid. I swear to God they just walk right into this shit.

It won't, we know this is the gang that can't shoot straight, the gift that keeps on giving. The blackout drunk girl will remain blackout drunk and there are no other coraborating witnesses. Same weak shit as ever. A year ago you wanted CBF prosecuted for perjury but you think this college fairytale has legs? Libs are making this a yearly tradition the festival of Kavanaugh followed by the airing of false accusations. This is stupid this is dumb they retracted the story and left out important details. No one believes these people anymore. They could have video and if it is this cast of characters there is no reason to believe them. RBG must be really sick or liberals want to fundraise.

I certainly hope so. Just calling it as I see it and it certainly looks like they are reeling Republicans in.

[Speaker to Animals]

Another problem.. this is nothing like the previous allegations. The man making the allegation made it confidentially to Congress during the hearings. He refused to cooperate with the NYT for this story. The woman alleged to have been assaulted has this far refused to cooperate even with the congressional investigation.

There are a lot of variables that can flip against the right at this point.

And don't pretend like Trump hiring total jackasses has not been a thing since day one.


Here is a very realistic scenario that could happen:

-- Woman involved comes forward and says she does remember being assaulted by a man who thrust his penis into her hands while she was drunk at that party, but cannot identify the man due to intoxication.

-- We already have one man who was at the party who positively identifies Kavenaugh as that assaulter.

-- One more person who was at the party comes forward to accuse Kavenaugh.


None of this shit was media-seeking. Nobody was trying to get fame or attention. In fact, the man making the accusation attempted to do so discretely. The woman who was allegedly assaulted wanted nothing more to do with it.

This could potentially get pretty bad, regardless of what actually happened that night (or if anything at all happened). All it takes is for this woman to state that the event did indeed happen and one more person to allege it was Kavenaugh.

[pineapplemike]

worst case scenario this was some inappropriate behavior at a drunken college party over 30 years ago, kavanaugh aint getting impeached over this shit. some republicans will surely end up looking dumb but not nearly as dumb as the leading democratic candidates that all immediately called for his impeachment based on a sloppy hit piece

[Speaker to Animals]

worst case scenario this was some inappropriate behavior at a drunken college party over 30 years ago, kavanaugh aint getting impeached over this shit. some republicans will surely end up looking dumb but not nearly as dumb as the leading democratic candidates that all immediately called for his impeachment based on a sloppy hit piece

I beg to differ.

[pineapplemike]

worst case scenario this was some inappropriate behavior at a drunken college party over 30 years ago, kavanaugh aint getting impeached over this shit. some republicans will surely end up looking dumb but not nearly as dumb as the leading democratic candidates that all immediately called for his impeachment based on a sloppy hit piece

fair enough