Site Supporter only1swanny Posted September 29, 2018 Site Supporter Share Posted September 29, 2018 The problem is that shit sticks.. The accusation is being sought by Democrats, and even if he does get the role, he will always be seen as having a pro-republican anti democratic biased. Basically they have managed to do their work by just an accusation.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnoopJohnnyJohn Posted September 29, 2018 Share Posted September 29, 2018 4 hours ago, mickbrown said: I imagine the FBI will be looking into the other women too? Or is it just this case? I believe it's just the one. The other two were already dismantled by basic fact checking. I'm sure that the investigation will reveal no evidence, but it does give the Democrats time to find another accuser or two. My money is on Monday afternoon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bolty58 Posted September 30, 2018 Author Members Share Posted September 30, 2018 19 hours ago, enzo gambaro said: Inconceivable that he might just be a horrible cunt, then? Case closed. Yes. His record more than suggests otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bolty58 Posted September 30, 2018 Author Members Share Posted September 30, 2018 Pleased to see there are others willing to assess and evaluate rather than be led by the nose by the ugly (and by the fuck do I mean ugly) and vociferous faux outraged activists who have an agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Spider Posted September 30, 2018 Site Supporter Share Posted September 30, 2018 The timing makes this just look extremely iffy. If he's guilty, then let justice be served. However, as mentioned by others, his reputation is unlikely to improve regardless of the outcome. It's cynical at best, life-ruining at worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widnes Two Hats Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 How can you prove something happened 32 years ago, As far as Im aware, none of the witnesses even remember the party nevermind the incidenet. Get her on the lie detector, if she fails electricute her with a cattle prod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickbrown Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 10 minutes ago, Widnes Two Hats said: How can you prove something happened 32 years ago, As far as Im aware, none of the witnesses even remember the party nevermind the incidenet. Get her on the lie detector, if she fails electricute her with a cattle prod She’s done a lie detector test. She wasn’t lying according to the test. Maybe he should take one now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwfcfan5 Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 The fact that some people think such a serious accusation that is clearly very difficult for these women to make is all about politics, and that their first concern is not about the people involved at all, says everything about those people, and explains why we are in such a messed up, angry, and hate filled world. There is more than enough here to suggest his appointment is delayed until a full (far more than the week so far) investigation can be carried out. As above, perhaps he should take a lie detector test, given as a Judge he ruled that they were "meaningful" and the fact his accuser passed one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traf Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 The cynic in me suggests she's waited until the moment she can do him the maximum damage, but if he did it, then he deserves what's coming. I saw bits of the questioning and he comes across as guilty to me. he won't answer the questions, instead he's asking the same questions back. Surely that's not how it works? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widnes Two Hats Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 47 minutes ago, mickbrown said: She’s done a lie detector test. She wasn’t lying according to the test. Maybe he should take one now? That will teach me to comment on things I know fuck all about, Cheers Mick, I wasn't aware of that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traf Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 Just now, Widnes Two Hats said: That will teach me to comment on things I know fuck all about, I think we're all too far down that road to turn back now, aren't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickbrown Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, Widnes Two Hats said: That will teach me to comment on things I know fuck all about, Cheers Mick, I wasn't aware of that No worries. That's what this place if for, surely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Zico Posted October 2, 2018 Moderators Share Posted October 2, 2018 the evidence against him is mounting up... https://news.sky.com/story/brett-kavanaugh-involved-in-bar-brawl-after-ub40-gig-11515134 US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was reportedly involved in a bar fight after a UB40 concert in 1985. The judge is said to have thrown ice at someone who he thought resembled the English reggae band's lead singer Ali Campbell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 35 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said: the evidence against him is mounting up... https://news.sky.com/story/brett-kavanaugh-involved-in-bar-brawl-after-ub40-gig-11515134 US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was reportedly involved in a bar fight after a UB40 concert in 1985. The judge is said to have thrown ice at someone who he thought resembled the English reggae band's lead singer Ali Campbell. Hope the ice wasn’t for Red Wine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmjhb Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 A UB40 concert in 1985?!? Hope none of you lot plan to run for high office with all the tales of away day naughtiness... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickbrown Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 43 minutes ago, jmjhb said: A UB40 concert in 1985?!? Hope none of you lot plan to run for high office with all the tales of away day naughtiness... Should somebody with such shit taste in music be allowed to run for high office? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 On 29/09/2018 at 20:35, mickbrown said: I imagine the FBI will be looking into the other women too? Or is it just this case? It is America Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnoopJohnnyJohn Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 5 hours ago, mickbrown said: She’s done a lie detector test. She wasn’t lying according to the test. Maybe he should take one now? The questions that she answered in no way pertained to Kavanaugh. The two questions were: "Is any part of your statement false?" "Did you make up any part of your statement?" There isn't even evidence of base-line questions such as her name, age, past etc. It's a "lie detector test" in name only, to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Zico Posted October 2, 2018 Moderators Share Posted October 2, 2018 They asked her the same question twice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyldesley_white Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 6 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said: They asked her the same question twice? and its would seem about someone else, because according to snoopy those 2 question didn't pertained to Kavanaugh , which seem a bit strange Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Zico Posted October 2, 2018 Moderators Share Posted October 2, 2018 This is when snoop gets annoyed because we took what he said literally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youri McAnespie Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 Look at him, that's proof enough... Guilty as charged, cut his bollocks off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnoopJohnnyJohn Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 2 hours ago, ZicoKelly said: This is when snoop gets annoyed because we took what he said literally That's probably fair. I mis-spoke slightly (this is what you get when I reply on the way to a meeting). I should have added "directly" to the end of my first sentence. Normally, the tester would ask direct questions about the case so that there is a clearly indication of any deception, as well as first asking some baseline questions to level the machine at her natural body levels at rest. Obviously the statement accuses Kavanaugh, but she has corrected parts of the statement since (number of people at the party, number of people in the room etc). If the statement has been corrected since, it means that it wasn't completely true, which makes the lie detector results null and void. If she wrote that statement, and then wrote another (truthful) statement about something completely unrelated, she could easily say "no" to both questions even if she was lying. There's only a very weak link between the results of the test and the statement she wrote (which, by the way, reads as if it was written by a fifteen year old - see attached). This is a well-known way of fooling lie detectors tests - just as you can replace the question asked with a different question in your head to which the answer is true. This is why lie detector results are not admissible in court. For what it's worth, I think he was there... I think he tried it on with her (not to the extent that she claims, but certainly not "asking for permission"), and she refused and ran away, or she egged him on to the bedroom and then had second thoughts - either way wouldn't surprise me. However, by even admitting he was there it would give full credibility to her story and take away his chances of being confirmed (as SCOTUS). He probably lied about not being there, thinking that it would not have gone on for this long, and now caught in that lie he can't retract as it's a massive no-no for a judge to lie. Personally I still think he should be confirmed anyway. He has a flawless record as a judge in a 20+ year career, and who hasn't done some dumb stuff in highschool, under the influence of alcohol. The whole thing is a farce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnoopJohnnyJohn Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 3 hours ago, ZicoKelly said: They asked her the same question twice? And, yes... they asked those 2 exact questions. It's laughable, at best, and utterly devious at worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwfcfan5 Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 15 hours ago, SnoopJohnnyJohn said: The questions that she answered in no way pertained to Kavanaugh. The two questions were: "Is any part of your statement false?" "Did you make up any part of your statement?" There isn't even evidence of base-line questions such as her name, age, past etc. It's a "lie detector test" in name only, to be honest. Oh come on.... Why doesn't he take one? He favoured them as a judge. He can answer 2 questions and then we can see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.