# Kavanaugh.....



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

What are some peoples thoughts on this whole thing? Especially with what is coming out.

Things I have read so far on multiple sites:

1. Happened 30+ years ago at a party with anywhere from 4-8 people (number of guests is hazy)
2. There were 3 people in the room.... two deny anything like what is described happened.
3. The accuser's account of the incident has changed a couple of times. 
- But with the time passing it can happen. 
- She blames her therapist for not having correct details.
4. The accuser's parents had a foreclosure case that was heard by Kavanaugh's mom.
5. The committee set up a time for her to testify behind closed doors or in public to give her side and same with Kavanaugh.
6. The accuser now wants an FBI investigation before testifying.
- This comes out after the FBI said it is a state matter and didn't want to investigate.
7. Feinsten was holding onto this letter since July.
8. The accuser has stated she didn't want to come out with this info but hired a lawyer and took a lie detector in august.
9. The memories were repressed and she didn't come out with them until in therapy
10. She once stated she went or wanted to go the authorities back when it happened but then back tracked on that statement.
11. Someone talked with Kavanaugh and said that Kavanaugh didn't know the girl (but again Kavanaugh hasn't public come out to say this.)
12. She is a registered democrat (this shouldn't matter)&#8230; but is very out spoken against Trump and has donated money to fighting the president.

Please if I am missing anything put add the info on.

*now my opinion:*

I think this is all a delayed tactic and she is getting forced to come out with this. I think since the committee said they want to hear her side of the story under oath... is why she now wants an investigation! Because now with an investigation will be drawn out. She will also not be under oath. I am very sad to say this but more hole in this story are being found daily. It is very sad that if this is found out to be more and more false by the day that this is the sad state our political system has become!

Again I am in the wait and see. But each day it is getting harder and harder to believe this story.

****If this all is found out to be true. He shouldn't be a judge... period. But again... wait and see.

Others thought and any other info I missed???


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think you covered it well. #4 Kavanaughs mother foreclosed on this lady's mother. That makes it look like revenge. There have been so many false attacks that I find anything they say incredulous. I believe half of what the republicans say, and nothing the democrats or the media say. I heard on the radio today that the media approval is between two and three percent. Less than half of congress and they are in the single digits.

So many years and now she brings it up. If she has a memory it was planted by her shrink. Or her shrink worked her over so she could actually believe it for the lie detector test. There is no such thing as integrity with the politicians or the media. We have gone into the crapper in this country and North Dakota wants to lead us down that same path by passing measure three to legalize marijuana. I remember people that used marijuana. A very few were productive the rest got dumber by the year. More lazy by the year too.

Edit: I'm ok with medical mj, but we all know the junkies will push for total legalization.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman....

I don't think the house was fore closed on. I think the bank and the home owners worked something out. I just know Kavanaughs mom was a judge on it at one time. It is still kind of up in the air what happened.... ie: if she passed the case to another judge, if she told the two parties to mediate, or if she ruled on the case. I still haven't seen what happened.

Anyways...

I am glad to see that the committee is not falling for the FBI investigation stuff and telling everyone that they can meet in pvt, have lawyers met and question each person, etc. But still going ahead if the accuser is stonewalling against meeting with the committee.

Now with the legalization..... I don't think it should be legalized until there is a definite test you can take like a breathalyzer for impared driving. Because someone can smoke up, take a shower, change clothes, hop into a vehicle and drive! The police can do field sobriety test (ie: walk the line type tests) but those are harder to prove in court than a breathe or blood test. Until a test like that is out it should only be used for medical reasons. Even though that is becoming a scam..... People say they have anxiety, then they get their medical card. But that is another topic.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

A new side note on Kavanaugh...

13. A former student of the all girls school the accuser went to said on facebook, "I remember hearing stories of the alleged assault". But since has deleted that post and says she will do no interviews. She said she has no first hand knowledge of the assault. This woman is also very vocal against Trump on social media and is living in Mexico City.

Is this a warranted comment?? Is it a biased comment? Is it someone just fuming the flames or is it truth that there was rumors floating around the school??

Time will tell. Again my opinion since she immediately deleted everything and is saying no first hand knowledge. Is it someone just wanting 15 mins of fame? I don't know.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think the #metoo movement was in hopes of upsetting the constitution. Under the constitution we are innocent until proven guilty. Have you noticed that has been changing and many men have lost their jobs for simple accusations. When that starts to happen there is no stopping it and it will without doubt be used for revenge. A poor worker shown the door will now accuse that supervisor of inappropriate sexual advances etc. The liberals want to make anything a woman or minority says be unquestionable.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

He just lost his future bid to be a Supreme Court Justice nominated by a republican president.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

#13.... need to add new info....

This lady in mexico now told NPR.... "That it happened or not, I have no idea"... Where her original (now deleted) facebook post said...."the incident DID happen, many of us heard about it in school".....

Take this all with a grain of salt. Time will tell and if the accuser will show up on Monday or work something out to tell her side of the story to the committee.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

So there is getting some head way on this whole thing.

But things I don't understand.

1. In a court case the plaintiff goes first and then the defense, then plaintiff can go again to rebut. How come she wants to make it opposite?

2. The Dem's were calling for FBI investigation, they were calling how they didn't want this to be another Anita Hill thing, and they called the Rep congressmen not to bully or intimidate Mrs. Ford because they are all male. Now that they are considering bringing in an outside person to question the dems are crying... DO YOUR JOB...



> The use of an outside counsel is already receiving pushback from Senate Democrats. An aide to a member of the Senate's Democratic leadership told CNN that, "outside counsel doesn't vote on Kavanaugh. Senators do. Republicans need to do their jobs and not hide."


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP

Hopefully this all gets wrapped up next week so they can still get a vote.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

The Dems don't want another Trump pick on the SC and they are doing anything they can to delay this confirmation until after the midterm election. It would not surprise me to learn that this "assault" was fabricated by the DNC in an effort to block this appointment.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Now there is a second person coming forward....

Details are not 100% as of now but this is what I have found out:

- In college at a dorm room party a girl got drunk during a drinking game. In a room full of people they were passing around a "fake" penis through out the night. Then the girl was really drunk and didn't have the best mind or vision. Had what looked like a penis in her face while she was on the floor about to pass out. Then she remembers seeing "clearly" Kavanaugh pulling up his pants or it looked like he was moving his hips forward like he was "zipping up". But then she also distinctly remembers hearing someone say... "Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in the face of (the accusers name)". There was a room full of people. He didn't try to have sex with this woman, he didn't force her to do anything, he didn't force himself on her... it was an "exposure" type incident. Which people debate if it is sexual assault or not. I am not one to judge but this is what is saying happened.

So again this is what I have found out so far. I don't know the background on the new accuser.

Edits:

In the New Yorker piece they say that nobody else is confirming that Kavanaugh did this. Many have said it wasn't him. The original piece had this in the article!!!

*** Think of the Peyton Manning incident. He said he was mooning another player and his butt ended up by the face of a trainer. But the difference is the Trainer filed a report, the trainer said the football team (and manning) and staff treated her different after she reported it. She was mocked and harassed in school. Do people think different of Manning now????


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

On the second person in college who said that Kavanaugh put his penis in her face...

Well some of the people she said were there stated they never saw that happen. She also "remembered" all of this after 6 days of questioning by her lawyer. But again this is all I have read/heard on tv so far. So take it with a grain of salt.

Now the new allegations by Avenatti and his "client". Stating that Kavanaugh helped orchestra "orgies" and "men to run train" on women.

Nothing has come out other than what Avenatti has stated. Anything this guy says I call total BS. He is trying to get his name back into the spot light. One of his Libel law suits against Trump with Stormy is about to get thrown out of court. Stormy is trying to sell a book, he is trying to run for office, etc. But I wont totally dismiss this until we see what his clients have to say. But again.... they are doing "TV show" tour.... not talking to police, not talking to congress, etc. So again take it with a grain of salt.

Edit:

This whole Avenatti claim I think is more and more ridiculous and will actually hurt if the other two are truthful. Because I am going off of that if Kavanaugh was organizing "sex partys" and what not. People in Kavanaugh's past would have said something about this... It would have been found out in his previous FBI checks. The FBI does very extensive back ground checks when it comes to normal employee's let alone judges!! especially judges as they go up in rank and power. I have dealt with 3 people going thru back ground checks. I was listed as college roommate, friend, and a reference in the three checks. The FBI or people doing these back ground checks interviewed me for 15-20 mins. They were phone interviews but I had about 20 questions asked to me each time. Again these were not the level of a job as a judge.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

If you haven't seen his interview I think I got it linked. Makes me very sad for him, his family, friends and our country.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09 ... truth.html

Finally got it right.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Another woman comes forward. She says she was at parties where boys lined up to "gang rape" girls.She said she saw him there. Doesn't say he raped her or saw other girls he raped. She works for the government. Has an avidavit which means she could be prosecuted for lying. This is a character issue.This guy is not the choir boy he makes himself up to be. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

11 white 60 plus year old male Republicans hire a woman lawyer to do the questioning. What a bunch of cowards and wusses. :eyeroll:


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

You know that if those middle aged, privileged, white legislators asked the questions they would have been called misogynistic, mean spirited, and every name in the book. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Average age of those 11 white males is 63. Glad you think that is middle age like me. :beer: :beer:

The senate needs to hear the 3 named women with allegations against him and let the FBI dig into their credibility.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Average age of those 11 white males is 63. Glad you think that is middle age like me. :beer: :beer:
> 
> The senate needs to hear the 3 named women with allegations against him and let the FBI dig into their credibility.


I think the reason liberals keep calling for the FBI is because they know it will not happen. The FBI doesn't get involved with these cases, and certainly not that old, and not without local law enforcement having a complaint in their hand. The court system would laugh her out of court. So this request is simply a stall technique. The democrats don't care about women at all. If they did bill Clinton would be Bill Cosby's cell mate. As a matter of fact I would guess liberals are ten times as likely to violate a womans right to privacy as a conservative. It's why they love abortion, it erases evidence.

Now we have a woman who claims to have been at a party and witnessed ten gang rapes over the years. Kavanaugh was in high school she was in college. No other women corroborate her story. Now tell me that if you witnessed this many gang rapes why would you keep going to these parties. Oh, ya she was liberal. That still doesn't tell me why she never told anyone. You know warn the conservatives and give a tip to the liberals.

Edit: All of the civilized world believes in presumption of innocents. If the slanderous hateful Democrat party is successful this nation will perish. They have name called and slandered every election. There is no shame or integrity in the Democrat party. I remember after Romney lost Harry Reid bragged that his lie that Romney had not paid taxes for ten years hurt Romney. Proud of being a liar. The founding fathers would be appalled.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Ken. At 50 the only way I can be considered young is to state they are middle aged at 63;-).


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Top four lines of Drudge this morning: 


> Two men tell Senate that they, not Kavanaugh, assaulted Ford...





> WILL SHE SHOW?
> [/quote
> 
> 
> ...


Like all the other Trump hate stories these are all falling apart. Do people actually believe them, or has the democrat/republican divide become such a chasm that democrats want so intensely to believe them? I normally don't trust people after they lie to me ounce, but this must be number ten or fifteen and people are still believing the democrats. Some of the things the wife shows me on Facebook just make me shake my head. Reason has left the building.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Sorry Plainsman.....it is the Republican far right that will cause this country to perish. Look at the hypocrites in the Senate who would not even give Obama nominee Garland a hearing and had to wait until the next election to appoint a supreme.Why aren't we now doing the same thing now? Oh yeah this isn't a presidential election. :eyeroll: Doesn't make any difference.The sleazyness and vindictiveness is in the far right not the left.

What are Republicans afraid of if we wait a week or 2 and check out these women's accusations......Oh yeah they are afraid they will lose control of Congress next moth. :down:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Sorry Plainsman.....it is the Republican far right that will cause this country to perish. Look at the hypocrites in the Senate who would not even give Obama nominee Garland a hearing and had to wait until the next election to appoint a supreme.Why aren't we now doing the same thing now? Oh yeah this isn't a presidential election. :eyeroll: Doesn't make any difference.The sleazyness and vindictiveness is in the far right not the left.
> 
> What are Republicans afraid of if we wait a week or 2 and check out these women's accusations......Oh yeah they are afraid they will lose control of Congress next moth. :down:


Oh my goodness Ken. Over our history lame duck presidents have not appointed to the supreme court, they have left it to the next president. This isn't a presidential election coming up it's simply for some of our congress. There is no hypocrisy involved, but there sure are a lot of false comparisons. You can eyeroll all you want Ken, but this is the truth and evidently your aware of it too. 
Look at those Obama did get in. I heard republicans the other day say how they disliked two of Obamas appointments, but voted for them anyway because that was Obama's right. It would appear that no democrats have that same view of the office of the president. 
As far as sleaziness and vindictive I give that trophy to the democrat party. As I said they really don't care about women they simply use them when it is of advantage. Like I said if they really cared Bill Clinton would be Bill Cosby's cell mate. Look at how Hillary and the democrats treated those women. They destroyed them. Some have been on TV again talking about how vicious it was. Remember James Carville saying "drag a dollar bill through a trailer court"? Have you heard any of the republicans in DC talk this way about Ford? NOOOOOOOOOO

Breaking news: Kavanaugh exposed himself to three nurses shortly after his birth.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

If you are going to put Bill Clinton in jail with Cosby......you better find a cell for 3 people because Trump belongs in there also.

Listening to Ford this morning......she sure sounds credible.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Listening to Ford this morning......she sure sounds credible.


 Are we talking about the same woman? The one that says after Kavanaugh molested her she is afraid to fly because she is afraid of tight spaces? That woman? The one that flies to islands all over the world for vacation, that woman? The one that flies home to the east coast to visit family multiple times a year to visit family, that woman? The woman that has two masters, a Phd, an attorney, a college prof that stands in front of classes and teaches day after day and now she pretends to be frightened, that woman? The woman that sees herself as so important she is going to dictate to the congress the rules she demands for her to testify, that woman? You actually buy all this bs?

Has anyone else noticed that the guys the #metoo movement has outed are all liberals? The liberals do not respect women. You have to look at what people do, not what they say.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Are you watching the same woman I am? Must not be.This woman was sexually abused by Kavanaugh. He does not deserve a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

She doesn't like to fly but does it when she has to. What does this have to do with anything. She says she is terrified to be there. I would be to.!!! She is claustrophobic.....so what.

Back to ......why won't the Republicans allow the FBI to look into this and interview people who could help this. Where is Mark Judge????


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Back to ......why won't the Republicans allow the FBI


 I have explained this two or three times. The jurisdiction starts back where this is supposed to have happened. The FBI just doesn't go and start investigating. This has happened once at the request of Bush, but that was a mistake on his part. The FBI is not activated without a criminal complaint. We all know why they want the FBI to investigate and that's because it takes a long time. They want to stall. This is nothing other than a stall tactic and the reason the libs are going so nuts is they are afraid that the murder of the unborn may be challenged. This whole thing is dishonest, and I am disappointed that not everyone sees it.

Lets go off the rails here and say the guy actually was guilty. I am disappointed that anyone equivocates a 17 year old boy touching on the outside of clothing with a governor raping a woman and a president having oral sex from a young intern, then lying to the congress, the media, and the American people. That is not equal.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I guess clamping his hand over her mouth and trying to take her clothes off doesn't count here. :eyeroll:

They are NOT talking about the FBI investigating this to prosecute him for sexual assult. Happened to long ago. Just to find out if it and what happened. Yes or NO.....No criminal action here except lying under oath.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hey Ken any idea why I can't get to the administrator control panel? I may not even be able to post what I just typed. I can not go from page to page without logging in for every page. Just happened. Also, I see the thoughts on Trump thread is gone. Did you delete it?

The FBI has already sent a letter and said the case is closed. They are done. This is simply stalling. We should all realize that anyone on this committee could ask for an FBI investigation. The American people would know it's a stall tactic so they want Kavanaugh to do it himself. Why should he, when the FBI has already responded.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I would never delete your posts unless you are using really bad profanity. When did you make a post there? From what I see, yours is the last post made yesterday.

All I see are moderator control panels. I know when I could not get on.....I sent messages to the Ad. and none were ever answered.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Like Sasha and Abby I am an administrator and couldn't stay logged in, couldn't make posts after my first two, and sent a message on the contact us page. Some posts were missing from this page. I didn't know if it was administration or what was going on. I kept trying to get on the administration page and it said I didn't have authority which I did minutes before. Real strange thing. Then I called huntin1 and the same thing was happening to him. That's when I decided someone must be working on the site.

I went out of dinner and when I got back home the posts were back and everything was normal. Before every time I changed a page I had to log in again. I spent an hour trying to get on. I was at one time able to make a post in the open form asking if anyone else had problems. Then for a while those posts disappeared.

Ken I didn't get any answers either. Must have been general site work, but they didn't let anyone know first. I see you had the same question on June 19:


> Where did the posts made today on the Hot Topics page go????


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

Dr. Ford requested to remain anonymous and gave her letter to Sen Feinstein, her congresswomen and counsel. She NEVER authorized them to release it, according to her testimony. She was totally screwed by one of the three!!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

You are correct......someone released the letter against her will.We probably will never know who.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman


> Lets go off the rails here and say the guy actually was guilty. I am disappointed that anyone equivocates a 17 year old boy touching on the outside of clothing with a governor raping a woman and a president having oral sex from a young intern, then lying to the congress, the media, and the American people. That is not equal.


Ken


> I guess clamping his hand over her mouth and trying to take her clothes off doesn't count here. :eyeroll:


If it happened of course it would count, but it's still not equal. No proof period. This nation builds it's justice system on innocent until proven guilty, but our democrats in congress want guilty until proven innocent. I think Kavanaugh has about done that. I watched much of the hearing yesterday and I have to say I was watching evil in action.

OK, now this is for everyone to consider: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... dresses-p/
The liberals say they are tolerant. Lately some republicans have been driven from restaurants. Now they publish the addresses, phone numbers, etc of republicans on the confirmation hearings. Why? That's easy, they want them emotionally and I think physically attacked. They would like to see them gang beaten in the streets. Cruz was driven from a restaurant just last week in fear of a physical altercation. The liberals have gone of the reservation.

From another article:


> The left will ensure that this man will not catch a break. The smug derision grew to epic proportions, with media lefties appearing even gleeful in their scathing social media posts. And yet, these are the people who demand decency and tolerance?





> Media spectacles such as these reveal the true color of showbiz lefties. They will besmirch the names of their opponents before they are even given a chance to answer and laugh as they are destroyed, deservedly or not. These comments reflect arrogance and nastiness of the highest level,


I think something may have happened to Ford. However, I think she is so far left that her shrink found it effortless to focus that on someone, anyone the shrink wanted to focus it on. I found no joy in watching Ford yesterday even if I didn't believe her. However, the left enjoyed the misery Kavanaugh portrayed and spoke of. They were gleeful and half would kill him if they would not face prosecution. They murder the unborn and many promote euthanizing the elderly and infirm. The healthy and conservative are just another small step. The left has no restrictions on their hate.


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

KEN W said:


> You are correct......someone released the letter against her will.We probably will never know who.


A lawsuit should be filed to find out. This low life leaking crap has got to stop. Attorney-client privilege cannot be breached for political charades! The dems are stepping over the life far too often! Destroying people's lives for a low life political agenda should swiftly stopped.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Not a Lindsey Graham fan but kudos to him. When you face lunacy and evil cowering in the corner doesn't work. I'm sick of being subject to it and the complacency that feeds it. Vote him in. When Ginsberg kicks the bucket nominate the catholic women Amy Barrett as her replacement. Force the pendulum back to the center.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

speckline said:


> KEN W said:
> 
> 
> > You are correct......someone released the letter against her will.We probably will never know who.
> ...


I wouldn't bet my life, but I would bet money on who leaked it. It sure wasn't one of the republicans and that's all we really need to know to know the character of these two parties. The democrats sacrificed Ford on the alter of political power. I have sympathy for Ford, but not for those who used her.

To be clear I don't like either party. There are few politicians that I have any respect for. That's why I call the two parties perverts and money worshipers. The democrats pervert the truth, they pervert the constitution, and they pervert nearly everything they touch. The republicans never seen a dollar they didn't like. That said the few that I do respect happen to fall on the republican side. Liberal activist judges pervert the constitution, and our nation can not survive with them. Yesterdays circus by the democrats I found their behavior appalling. I find their arrogance that insulted the intelligence of a nation beneath dignity.



> Not a Lindsey Graham fan but kudos to him.


 This is about the first time I have actually liked the guy.

What is this big fight about? It's about the democrats preserving their perversions.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

KEN W said:


> You are correct......someone released the letter against her will.We probably will never know who.


Not too hard to figure out. She gave it to two people, Dianne Feinsein and her lawyer. If her lawyer released it against her will he risks disbarment,so that's not likely. Which leaves one person, either DF released it herself, or she had one of her staff do it.



> Are you watching the same woman I am? Must not be.This woman was sexually abused by Kavanaugh


She may have been sexually abused, but it wasn't by Kavanaugh. Her recollection about the incident is rather vague, Kavanaugh has calendars dating back to 1980 that detail not only activities, but people who were with him at the time. Even though there are parties mentioned, this one was not. In fact, his weekends that summer were spent out of town.

And the other four people she said were there, all stated that Kavanaugh was not at this party.

And then you have the two men who told the committee that they were the ones who assaulted her.

This is nothing more than a smear campaign against a man who is one of the best judges in this country by a bunch of butt hurt Democrats who can't get over the fact that Trump beat Hillary.

I hope the FBI does investigate, he'll be cleared. Then I sincerely hope that he sues the crap out of Dianne and the DNC for what they have done to his family and his reputation.



> Where is Mark Judge????


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

huntin1 I see the statement: "I am knowingly submitting this letter under penalty of felony". I may have missed it, but did Ford testify under oath? The letter under oath is as good as him being there. Simply more stall techniques or they are dumber than stumps take our pick. Oh, or they think we are dumber than stumps. Evidently the democrats have a lot of stumps out there.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I believe they are sworn in before testifying, but I did not see it so I'm not sure.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I see the democrats did to Flake from Arizona what Ford claims happened to her. They got him in a room and either bought him or threatened him. Now he is asking the committee to wait a week and ask for an FIB investigation. The FIB has already said case closed, and no one in committee has the authorization to make the deal.

Have you ever watched house of cards on Netflix? This is so much like that. Flake is going to shaft the republicans. Arizona, the constitution, Kavanaugh, the American people, and the nation. Yellow 21st century Benedict Arnold.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Heidi's people are not answering her phone. I guess that means she doesn't want to hear from us, and further I think it means she is willing to give up her career and fall on her sword for the party rather than represent North Dakota.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

How can the Democrats threaten Flake? :huh: Come on......He is not running for office again.

At least 1 Republican with a conscience and some common sense.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

He may be as stupid as McCain was when he actually thought the media like him when they run around together on whatever it was McCain called his buss. These guys in Washington I think all have a few skeletons in the closet. At one time Flake said he was considering running for president in 2020. Maybe his liberal buddy says he will help. After his backstabbing he could never get the nomination.

Right now there is Flake and may be a couple RINO women who are thinking of their political power and don't care about anyone else.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

3 cheers for Jeff Flake. :beer: :beer: :beer:

Total loss of respect for Lindsay Graham. Calling Fords testimony a "bunch of garbage" was totally uncalled for. Basically saying she lied under oath.Threatening the Democrats on the committee how he would treat them when he supposedly becomes chairman of the committee.Graham is not worth listening to. And I always thought he was a moderate to respect......no more. His true colors are now showing. uke: uke: uke:

I hope Dems. completely hammer the far right in Nov. and take control of Congress and then in 2 years get the fake president out of Washington.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think the republicans will get hammered if they don't approve Kavanaugh. As for Graham it's one of the only times I have respected the man.



> His true colors are now showing. uke: uke: uke:


 I sure hope your right.

I was thinking Ford believed what she said. Then I remembered her saying that she couldn't fly because she was frightened of small spaces ever since being locked in a room by Kavanaugh. When asked how she got there she said airplane and some democrats laughed. Then if you read new we see she flies all over the world on island vacations. So we know she lies. Then she said she wished they would have come to her. They offered, so this was deception. So thinking about those things and thinking a psychiatrist would be good at portraying any emotion she wanted people to believe I have come to the conclusion that there is a strong possibility she made the whole thing up. Especially since her good friend testified it never happened.

I think every democrats in their subconciouse knows this is true, they simply are so partisan they push it aside in their mind because they want to believe it so bad. Perhaps much like Ford.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Never been a fan of Graham, but I thought he gave the Dems exactly what they've needed for a long time, to be called out in public. Dr. Ford was less than honest, anyone with any interviewing training could see the signs. And as far as fake president, we got rid of the fake president 2 years ago.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Sorry but the fake president lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 2020 can't come soon enough. Heaven forbid if he gets another term.

The only one lying is Kavanaugh. Better for the country if the fake president withdraws his name and nominates someone else.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm hoping Kavanaugh gets confirmed by mid October and 2020 marks the start of another 4 years of making America great again.

Trump says and does a few things that I don't agree with, but regardless of how the Dems and the media spin it, he has done what he said he was going to do and has come a long way in making this country great again. We're a lot better off now than we would have been had Hillary won.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The only thing Trump has done that I agree with is immigration. Otherwise we would be MUCH better off with President Hillary.

Just wait until ND farmers start going under because they have no place to sell their beans. Make America Great Again won't sound so good to them. Making it great on their backs. Plus as things increase in price for all of us because of his trade war policies we will have to come up with a new slogan. :eyeroll:

Maybe if Trump has to withdraw Kavanaugh, he can nominate a woman and she can be vetted by Ivanka. :laugh:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hillary would have continued the economic downward spiral that Obama started. Those that can't admit that Trump has been wonderful for the economy are the type my mother used to say would cut off their nose to spite their face.

As far as the farmers I hope they don't rely to much on aiding the enemy for their livelihood. I would expect the same thing to happen as happened years ago when China was a little angry with us. They didn't buy our beans they bought from Brazil. Of course Brazil had few beans so first they had to buy from us. I never did like it when we sold so much wheat to Russia. We taxpayers subsidized the wheat, Russia bought it, we paid more in the grocery store. So the American taxpayer paid twice to support Russia. I hope the farmers do well, but I hope they find a new market, and the Chinese can go hungry. That or jack up the price on beans to the ceiling for China.

I have great hopes for 2020 Ken. You will have been out of that communist organization (the North Dakota Teachers Association) long enough to see the light and vote for Trump. :beer:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman.....I am also out of the political wasteland of ND.

Trump inherited an improving economy and takes credit for it. :eyeroll:

Sure hope you are right about the farmers. But I think not. Hard times for them ahead if China and Europe won't agree with Trump.

When in Canada last week.....they think Trump is a joke. Although they don't like Trudeau either.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ken they think Canada will sign on in the next 48 hours.



> Trump inherited an improving economy and takes credit for it. :eyeroll:


 Only in your liberal hallucinations Ken, only in your liberal hallucinations. 



> Sure hope you are right about the farmers. But I think not. Hard times for them ahead if China and Europe won't agree with Trump.


 Our scientists could make some money giving them all our nuclear secrets too, but I don't think they should.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Plainsman.....I am also out of the political wasteland of ND.
> 
> Trump inherited an improving economy and takes credit for it. :eyeroll


Hmmm.......



> The rate of GDP growth was decelerating in Obama's last year. It went from 2.3% in Q2, to 1.9% in Q3 to 1.8% in Q4 of 2016. Under Trump, GDP growth has averaged 2.9%. It was 4.2% last quarter and might be higher in the current one.
> 
> The stock market also was stuck in neutral the year before the November 2016 elections. The Dow is up by some 45% since then.
> 
> ...


https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... g-economy/


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

huntin1 here is another thing people don't talk about. They changed the way the count the unemployed under Obama. If you were no longer looking for work you were not counted as unemployed. The real unemployment under Obama wasn't that much better than the depression of the 1930's. Overall the real unemployment under Obama was about 17% and the blacks Obama was going to help had an unemployment over 50%. The liberals will squeal like stuck pigs when they hear the truth.

Back to Kavanaugh I'll predict the next liberal dirty trick. Maryland doesn't have a statute of limitations. Soros will pay millions to stop Kavanaugh and back any legal ramifications if Ford get sued. I predict she will file a complaint, Maryland will start their investigation and charge Kavanaugh before they are done, then after the election they will drop all charges. They will have no guilty conscience because they have no conscience. They are pleased with themselves when they destroy an innocent conservative. I don't think we have half the idea what evil they are capable of.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

They may not have a statute of limitations now, but in 1982 they did. This would be classified as a misdemeanor sexual assault and would have needed to be reported within one year of occurrence. I doubt they would even start an investigation with no chance to legally prosecute.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I doubt they would even start an investigation with no chance to legally prosecute.


 Your forgetting these are liberals. They don't care about conviction they want to stop Kavanaugh. They are the party of #metoo. I often wonder if the whole #metoo movement was all planned with this end game in mind? Who in their right mind thinks women can't lie? Some of the biggest liars I have met in my lifetime were women. The #metoo movement endangers our legal system and the presumption of innocents until proven guilty. Of course if your Bill or Hillary then your never guilty even with proof beyond reasonable doubt. I just don't get why everyone doesn't see the double standard. Maybe they do and don't care.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Even if the Montgomery County Department of Police took a report from Ford and agreed to investigate it, the States Attorney would have to prosecute it. If he did that he opens himself and the County to a huge lawsuit from Kavanaugh.

The guy who claimed BK raped a friend and then recanted after the story went public is going to be investigated for possible criminal charges. They need to investigate every single one of these allegations and then charge the accuser once it is proven false. Yes that goes for Dr. Ford as well. If they can prove that she made a false accusation she gets charged criminally and her $700,000+ go fund me accounts get seized.

I'll say it again. When all of these accusations are proven false, Kavanaugh needs to file lawsuits on every one of them.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Same goes for Kavanaugh if he lied under oath.....prosecute him for perjury. I'll say this also..... Ford needs to file a civil lawsuit against him.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Sue him for what? Every one of the people that she says were there, including her close friend, Leland Keyser, have stated under penalty of a felony that they were never at the party that she describes.

At some point I believe that it will come out that she fabricated the entire incident.

But I will agree with you that if Kavanaugh lied under oath, he gets charged with perjury.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> At some point I believe that it will come out that she fabricated the entire incident.
> 
> But I will agree with you that if Kavanaugh lied under oath, he gets charged with perjury.


 I agree on both points.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Here is how I see things in our debate. We are all a product of our education and experience. Ken, I don't think I have ever know what you taught in school. We have one fellow with a masters in criminal justice with about what 40 years experience, and another with 42 hours psychology, supervisory training, plus 32 years as a reserve deputy. These experiences and our education bring us to our suspicions.

Correct me if I am wrong huntin1, you know this far better than I. We now have the #metoo movement and are expected to automatically believe women. When we look at crime men are guilty of more direct risk taking while women are more deceptive to avoid physical risk. What's that mean? It means women lie a heck of a lot more than men. That will get me hung I suppose, but I see that is undeniable truth.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I have degrees in Social Studies and Special Education. Taught 35 years in High School Educable Mentally Handicapped.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

You're pretty much correct, at least when it comes to crime. Men take more risks and they do lie, but it's an in your face blatant lie and if pressed will most often come clean. Women are subtly deceptive and when nothing else works turn on the tears, but to get an admission of guilt is almost impossible. There are of course exceptions in both cases.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> I have degrees in Social Studies and Special Education. Taught 35 years in High School Educable Mentally Handicapped.


 Really, did you ever have Heidi? :rollin:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

That's pretty good.....but I did have Cramer until he turned 21 and the school was not responsible anymore. Seems like he still isn't. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> When in Canada last week.....they think Trump is a joke. Although they don't like Trudeau either.


 That's because they listen to the media and believe all the bs. Remember I said 48 hours we would have a trade deal with Canada. Well, booooom this morning we have a new NAFTA deal with Canada included. Another promise is a done deal.


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

An experts unsolicited opinion
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/0 ... ew-report/


----------



## Canuck (Nov 10, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> > When in Canada last week.....they think Trump is a joke. Although they don't like Trudeau either.
> 
> 
> That's because they listen to the media and believe all the bs. Remember I said 48 hours we would have a trade deal with Canada. Well, booooom this morning we have a new NAFTA deal with Canada included. Another promise is a done deal.


No! Sure we watch the news (CBC) but we solely base our opinion of Trump on his words and actions. He is a horrible, despicable person.

Canada can't wait for change. Too bad Trump has destroyed our small, family dairy farms in the meantime. Some US dairy farmers I know in Minnesota wish they had our system of supply management. It has kept the little guys on the landscape until now. Now they have been sold out by our government as a concession to get a deal with a guy who will likely be gone in two years. That is a most unfortunate thing. It will destroy many families livelihoods and lifestyles. Too bad for them, eh.

Canuck

P.S. I get no enjoyment out of this political discussion and won't be around for the next week to respond. Just letting you know that we Canadians don't fall for fake news and don't really care for fake presidents.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

I don't get enjoyment from politics either. I'm not a particularly confrontational or argumentative person. But as I age I find it more difficult to continually sit back and see my country and the morals and ideals it was founded upon eroded. Donald Trump is like all of us. A flawed human being. He doesn't act or speak like a career politician. He isn't. That's one of the reasons he was elected. That and because he gets things done. Tries his best to do what he said and says he would/will do. You may not agree with it but you know where he stands. That's refreshing in my book.

You blame him for ills that may be caused to the Canadian dairy industry. Then you fully admit your flaming liberal prime minister let it happen. It seems obvious(maybe I am wrong) your politics support Trudeau and so conversely Trump, Republicans, conservatives are the problem? Trump has said from the start he will put his countries interests and citizens first. Would you not want a prime minister that proposes and delivers the same?


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Bill Bennett tells it like it is and explains trump.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

North1, I think you explained him pretty well.

I do not agree with everything the man says, but he does what he does because he believes that it is best for America and her citizens. He does not care about furthering his political career, he cares about this country. We haven't seen that in a long time. I for one hope that he gets reelected in 2020.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Canuck said:


> No! Sure we watch the news (CBC) but we solely base our opinion of Trump on his words and actions. He is a horrible, despicable person.


I can think of a few more adjectives.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

The "honest" totally believable Dr. Ford.




























She needs to be charged with a felony.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yes, and Swetnick and her attorney both need felony charges. Ford is a looney and a funny farm may be more appropriat than prison. I think many of the democrats in congress were complicit in the fabrication of these lies.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Yep. Without a doubt. But sadly I don't think it would ever happen. I just for the life of me cannot fathom how someone could be so hateful. How they could knowingly try to destroy someone and their family over politics. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". As a society we need more Jesus and less of everything else.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

In the politically correct world we find ourselves I am always reticent about speaking on women's issues. However, I am increasingly becoming aware of a dichotomy in our society. The women I know and are close to me exhibit a completely different attitude outlook on life and their well being. To be blunt it seems the in your face liberal progressive women in society are increasingly unhappy. They are unsure of themselves, their environment and those around them. It seems the liberal/progressive agenda meant to empower them has achieved the opposite effect. IMHO No surprise there.

I am just curious if others agree or I am way off base. I mean my wife and the women I know well have relatively the same conservative Christian values as I do and they are stable, successful, tolerant, loving, value life in all stages and are the complete opposite of what I see in the their gender on the left.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Same here north1. Further the liberal women in the ELCA that I belonged to for 39 years were as you described liberal women. Their favorite passtime was gossip. The conservative women at my current church will chastize a person for gossip. Political correctness and liberal goals are poison.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Two faced president blasts Ford after telling us how good of a women she is. He rides the moment however which way it flows. And Republican senators are just as bad. Indignant about his treatment of Ford....then voting with him anyway.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

My, my, my, I wonder if any more will go down.










Cosko works for Shiela Jackson Lee


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ken we all listened to Ford and found her credible to begin with. Then the further she went the more questions come up. Then we find she actually lied to Congress and may face criminal charges. Ken if you thought someone credible, or to begin with simply gave them the benefit of doubt, then the evidence said otherwise would you not change your mind? Are you saying we should all ignore the evidence or we are two faced?

I think the democrats trying to destroy an innocent man despicable. Mitch McConnel just filed clotchur and by Monday Kavanaugh should be on the supreme court.

I hope we see decimation suites filed against these lying women. James Carville when fefending Clinton said "drag a dollar through a trailer court" talking about the women who rightly accused Clonton. We heard nothing. Do any of you know why? Sure you do. Because the democrats don't really care about women. They don't care about minorities either. They just use them to advance their own power.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Those are some pretty good fairy tales. :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Americans have seen the evil intent of the democrat party and they will remember it when they vote this fall. Please Ken watch something besides CNN.

This tells you what these people are like:


> GOP-doxxing suspect arrested; worked or interned for Feinstein, Jackson Lee, other Dems





> Police boost security at Capitol amid tension over Kavanaugh


 This has to be done because the liberals are violent. Intolerant and violent.



> Police won't look into claim against Keith Ellison...


 Why not? If he is innocent he should not live under this cloud. If he is guilty he should resign and stop telling others how to treat women. Perhaps there should be consequences for a democrat too.



> The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump's job performance.


 Up after he mocked the lying woman. Americans are sick of liars, and politicians. Ooops I repeated myself there.



> 1-in-3 pass 'US Citizenship test'...
> 
> Just 19% for Americans 45 and younger!
> 
> Poll: Many voters don't know candidates' names...


 This is why Michelle Obama is saying vote even if you don't know anything. The require ignorance. Don't be ignorant, turn on FOX news.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman.....you hunting anything this year? i'm leaving to go pheasant hunting tomorrow. Hope we don't get snowed out on Sunday.

The Senate vote, if it happens tomorrow will be interesting.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'm messed up this year. Right shoulder has bone spurs and they have worn through the rotator cuff. I have surgery the first week of December. Both my knees are messed up, but the right has a torn meniscus and it's tough to walk. I had to shoot a crossbow this fall. I tried to pull my compound which didn't work out well at all. I did shoot a nice 4X4 that scores 145. Although 10 minutes after sunset on a cloudy day and a new buck came in that I thought was the one I was after. I wanted one that would have gone 160 to 165. 
I, my grandson, and huntin1 all got doe license this year. I can't decide if I should go for 1500 yards with the 300 mag, 1000 yards with the Creedmoor, or 100 yards with a 308 and subsonic. I miss the years where I got a buck tag and five doe tags. I actually ate one as roasts, steaks, and stew. I made two into jerky. I gave two away. Took some to Carrington where the high school butchers them and gives to the needy. 
I put a new 26 inch varmint contour on my Savage BA Stealth. I really like the chassis, the action, and the trigger, but the Savage barrels are rough as a cob. It built up to much copper in about 30 rounds. I could have burnished, but what the heck a new Criterion barrel and problem solved. Groups are under .2 inches with 143 ELD-X, 140 ELD-M, 123 ELD-M, and 140 Berger VLD's. For coyote I was considering the 123 because I am getting 3100 fps. Crazy though the 140 ELD-M and others are faster at 1200 yards. Ballistic coefficient is .646 on the 140 ELD-M. The 147 ELD-M BC is .697 which is great, but they start out to slow to interest me. I am going to cut some of these bullets in half and check jacket thickness. I want bullets to open at long range and maybe the 123 is still a contender.
Good luck tomorrow Ken. Where are you going? Staying in Minnesota or coming home? :beer:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

My brothers and I have hunted the Elgin area for pheasants since the 90's. Know quite a few ranchers down there. This will be the first time I have bought a non resident license since I was in high school. Now that I am a nonresident, deer tags are a tough draw. I drew a muley buck tag in the badlands last fall. Might take 10 years to get another one.

I will be hunting deer here near Hawley with my son in law and grandson. We put in some food plots this fall. Bought a stand at Menards the other day. Haven't hunted out of one of those since high school. But I can hunt every day of the season here. I really don't care if I shoot a doe. Would rather let my grandson shoot a buck if one shows up. He and I both shot bucks last year. His first.

Sounds like you are a physical mess. I am still struggling with knee replacement and don't get around to well. I am glad I can just sit in a stand.

You should n't have a tough time getting does.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

In the past I walked five to ten miles on opening day. I had double knee scoped maybe 20 years ago and a second 15 years ago. For lack of cartilage I have not walked much for 20 years. I camp in the relatives pasture that I hunt, then pull my reclining lawn chair ten yards to the edge of the hill along with coffee and cookies and three or four different guns. I got tired of watching coyotes run past without shooting for fear of driving deer away from everyone else so now I have a silencer. Last year I pounded one at 565 yards with a 300mag pushing a 210 Berger VLD at 3060 fps. All I saved was the skull. I hit him going away on the left side and took a foot wide swat from rear to throat. I need a third suppressor so I can have one on the 300 and one on the 6.5 Creedmoor.

Shoot up those corn buzzards Ken.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

From USA Today. I'm shocked.

https://start.att.net/news/rea...ugh_assault-rgannett

Christine Blasey Ford's Changing Kavanaugh Assault Story Leaves Her Short On Credibility

USA TODAY - Margot Cleveland

When Christine Blasey Ford testified last week before the Judiciary Committee, America witnessed a haunted woman recounting a devastating trauma. But putting aside Ford's emotional performance and focusing instead on the professor's testimony reveals numerous inconsistencies in her narrative that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.

As a sex-crimes prosecutor, Republican questioner Rachel Mitchell is well-positioned to "know it when she sees it." But rather than see Ford as a victim of sexual abuse by Kavanaugh, Mitchell saw her as a witness lacking in credibility. And this conclusion comes from an expert who knows that there are many reasons victims delay reporting sexual abuse. Mitchell also recognized that victims may legitimately not remember certain details related to an attack.

But the problem for Ford is not that she doesn't remember everything: It is that everything she remembers changes at her convenience.

First, Ford's testimony that the assault occurred in the summer of 1982, when just 15, conflicted with both her therapist's notes and the text message Ford sent to the Washington Post. According to reporter Emma Brown, Ford claimed she had been assaulted in the mid-1980s; and the therapist's notes stated Ford had been the victim of an attempted rape in her late teens. But by that time, Kavanaugh was attending Yale, so Ford's recasting of the attack to the summer of 1982 is suspect.

Ford's story changed in key ways

Ford's retelling of the alleged sexual assault also included several conflicting accounts of the number of individuals at the gathering. The therapist's notes stated that four boys had attempted to rape Ford. (Ford claims her therapist confused the total number of boys at the party with the number of boys who had attacked her.)

Later, in her July letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford again placed the number of individuals at the party at five, stating the gathering included her and four other individuals. But Ford then identified the four by name, and that group included three boys and one girl. And finally, during her Senate testimony, Ford unequivocally stated that "there were four boys I remember specifically being there," in addition to her friend Leland Keyser.

Another significant change in the scenario came when Ford testified about the location of the party. She had originally told the Washington Post that the attack took place at a house not far from the country club. Yet, when Mitchell revealed a map of the relevant locations and reminded Ford that she had described the attack as having occurred near the country club, Ford backtracked: "I would describe [the house] as it's somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that's shown in your picture." Ford added that the country club was a 20-minute drive from her home.

Finally, Ford altered her description of the interior layout of the home and the details of the party and her escape. A "short" stairwell turned into a "narrow" one. The gathering moved from a small family room where the kids drank beer (and which Ford distinguished from the living room through which she fled the house) when she spoke to the Washington Post, to a home described in her actual testimony as having a "small living room/family room-type area." And in an obvious tell to the change, Ford suggested that she could draw a floor plan of the house.

These four points are significant. First, because Ford had waited 30-plus years to report the purported attack, a therapist's notes from Ford's sessions with her husband countered claims that Ford had invented the assault to derail Kavanaugh's confirmation. But the notes did not name Ford's attacker. And the timing of the assault summarized by her therapist, whom Ford saw individually the following year, conflicted with Ford's current claims against Kavanaugh.

The final three contradictions are even more significant because in each circumstance Ford altered her story only after Kavanaugh and Senate investigators had obtained evidence to disprove her original tale. For instance, investigators had obtained statements from Kavanaugh and the two men and one female lifelong friend of Ford's, and they all denied any recollection of the gathering.

These contradictions mean Ford's not credible

Investigators also spoke with former classmates of Kavanaugh, including two men who showed staffers the "party houses" near the country club during the relevant time period. And the detailed description of the home interior Ford originally provided allowed investigators to compare her story to the layout of the homes of the individuals Ford identified. But then Ford changed her description of the house's floor plan.

Since media leaks of Ford's charges first broke, Kavanaugh and his supporters have stressed the impossibility of proving the negative: Kavanaugh could not prove he did not attack Ford. But Kavanaugh could prove that Ford's story could not possibly have happened by showing that none of the individuals at the supposed party lived in a house near the country club, and that none of their houses matched that described by Ford. Kavanaugh and investigators were poised to do so when Ford changed her story.

Open-minded Americans of all stripes should see that - emotions aside - Ford's testimony is completely devoid of credibility: so much so, that Mitchell told the Senate this week that Ford's allegations do not even meet the preponderance of evidence standard. That standard, which governs in civil litigation, asks whether it is more likely than not that an event occurred.

Yes, victims must be believed. But Ford is not a victim - at least not of Kavanaugh.

Margot Cleveland is a lawyer and an adjunct instructor at the University of Notre Dame. Follow her on Twitter: @ProfMJCleveland


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Senator Heidi Heitkamp will vote NO on U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination.

http://www.wday.com/news/government-and ... oning-wday

Figures, as far as I'm concerned her days in Washington are numbered. Hopefully she is sent a message in Nov.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

It is my opinion that Schumer and the gang realized the jig is up, Cramer has a sizable lead, that she should vote no on Kavanaugh taking one for the team and their will be a cozy well paying job awaiting her on November 7. They feel they have to appease the #MeToo proletariat.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Heidi says she has to vote for what she knows is right. In other words she knows she isn't representing North Dakota. When she is saying voting for what's right that means to her voting for what is best for her. She will represent herself first, the democrat party second, North Dakota third, and America fourth.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

You guys seem to forget she voted yes on Garland, a very conservative judge. Now she basically isn't voting no because he is a Trump nominated conservative. She is voting no because this guy should not be on the Supreme Court. She is voting no but would probably vote yes on new nominee from Trump.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman....you seem to really be into guns.I have only 1 shotgun and 1 rifle. A 30-06 My parents gave me upon college graduation 47 years ago.

We didn't hunt pheasants last year and basically want to keep in touch with the farmers land we hunt. Not really concerned this year with shooting a bunch of roosters. A few would be nice.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

KEN W said:


> You guys seem to forget she voted yes on Garland, a very conservative judge. Now she basically isn't voting no because he is a Trump nominated conservative. She is voting no because this guy should not be on the Supreme Court. She is voting no but would probably vote yes on new nominee from Trump.


No, she is voting no because she fell for the lies made by Dr. Ford.

In Heidi's own words from the article I linked above:



> "The most important thing you tell a victim, if you, in fact, do, is that you believe the victim," explained Heitkamp
> 
> But Heitkamp says it's clear, her work on trafficking in the Senate along with advocating for victims makes this decision, she says, personal.


Based on her statement Heidi has made this decision, as so many liberals do, based on feelings and the idiotic assumption that we must believe the "victim" no matter what.

Dr. Ford may be a victim, but her attacker most definitely was not Kavanaugh. How many FBI investigations to you need to come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh did not do what he has been accused of? The FBI has complied with the wishes of the Democrats and found no evidence to support her story. She lied about his involvement. Why is it that so many liberals refuse to acknowledge this?

Plainsman alluded to the fact that I have a masters degree in criminal justice. My undergraduate degree is also CJ, but I am one class short of a Sociology major and an internship away from a Psychology major. I have also had 80 hours of training in Kinesic Interviewing and Interrogation. Basically, how to tell when someone is lying using verbal cues, what they say and how they say it. (Google Stan B. Walters)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Heidi know better because listening to the news this is some of the things they learned: Ford was helped write that letter by a former FBI agent. She may have been searched out and asked to do this. Her best friend was pressured to lie and say she was there, but would not. I am loosing all respect for democrats and liberals. Death threats, marching idiots, downright dishonesty and corruption. They all know better, but the are all controlled by their perverted wishes.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> Heidi know better because listening to the news this is some of the things they learned: Ford was helped write that letter by a former FBI agent. She may have been searched out and asked to do this. Her best friend was pressured to lie and say she was there, but would not. I am loosing all respect for democrats and liberals. Death threats, marching idiots, downright dishonesty and corruption. They all know better, but the are all controlled by their perverted wishes.





> 'Make them scared' site posts sex claims against male students...





> Suit accuses 'mean girls' of targeting boy with false allegations...





> #MeToo First Year Ends With More Than 425 Accused...


Liberalism/democrats have damaged the credibility of American women. Now the fools on the left are damaging it beyond what the democrats in congress have already done. Then you will hear democrats talk about how they are for women. That's also a pile of steaming bs. They use women.


----------



## Chuck S (Oct 1, 2018)

OK... I have been locked out of my account for about 2 weeks..... and had to change my username. People should figure out who I am... (Chuck Smith).

Anyways... on all of this Kavanaugh stuff.

1. FBI investigation:
I was going to write when they called for the FBI to investigate that once it would be over they would complain. Just like they are now. Saying it wasn't sufficient and follow all leads. I have been called by the FBI twice because I was a reference for friends who are currently working for them. One is a field agent and another is on a task force (police officer that moved to a child crimes unit) anyways.... in these investigations I was asked about there "social" behavior and activities. So in the previous 6 investigations they would have turned up some sort of red flag. I would think that they would delve deeper on judges. Someone would have said that he drank too much, partied too hard, was a womanizer, etc.

2. Credibility of both...
- Ford gave a compelling testimony. But again like many things there are holes in her case. Time, Place, etc. Witnesses not remembering a gathering or even knowing Kavanaugh. She switched how far the party was, the house description/layout, number of people who attended, etc. 
- Kavanaugh... gave a compelling testimony too. He should be rightfully angry about the whole thing. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Because if he wasn't firery they would have said he must be guilty... he was firery and they say he doesn't have the temperament to be a judge.

3. THE LEAK....
This is one that I think will burn someone. I think it will be feinstien but maybe it will be her attorneys. Who knows.... but that should be a huge issue for anyone. Also how Feinstein sat on the info. Like it has been shown that there is procedure to keep autonomy and still get things investigated.

4. The new report...
- The dems are crying to have it published. The reason for 1 report and have it in a closed room is so it doesn't get LEAKED!! I think the dems wanted to leak it and cause a panic and more of a dog and pony show that this has already been.

We will just have to wait and see what will come of the vote. I still don't know why they did all of this when almost all of the Dems said they wouldn't vote for him since day 1! I mean they hadn't had a hearing yet and said they wouldn't vote from him. Is that anyway to run a government??

I am afraid this has ****** many off on the Right... I honestly think this mid terms isn't going to go the way Dem's want it to go. The tricks they are pulling are getting tiresome. The public is seeing this. :bop:


----------



## Chuck S (Oct 1, 2018)

Also I forgot to add....

I think that the injection of Avenatii's clients claim hurt Dr. Ford very much. Because that was completely a smear. If there was sex parties going on and "gang rape" that would have been found out or talked about.

So that added to the other ones seemed like "piling on" and hurt Ford.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Chuck S said:


> Also I forgot to add....
> 
> I think that the injection of Avenatii's clients claim hurt Dr. Ford very much. Because that was completely a smear. If there was sex parties going on and "gang rape" that would have been found out or talked about.
> 
> So that added to the other ones seemed like "piling on" and hurt Ford.


Yeah.....I agree. Bad move on his part.

Well we have half the country on the left and half the country on the right. It will stay this way for more years than I live. The few moderates in the middle like me will fall to one side or the other depending on the issues.

The Senate needs to move back to a 60 vote majority to get a compromise. Then a guy like Kavenaugh would not make it and the president,whoever they are would have to come up with someone who would be more acceptable to both sides. As Collins said ...."we have hit rock bottom." As Trump would say....How sad.


----------



## Chuck S (Oct 1, 2018)

> Well we have half the country on the left and half the country on the right. It will stay this way for more years than I live. The few moderates in the middle like me will fall to one side or the other depending on the issues.
> 
> The Senate needs to move back to a 60 vote majority to get a compromise. Then a guy like Kavenaugh would not make it and the president,whoever they are would have to come up with someone who would be more acceptable to both sides. As Collins said ...."we have hit rock bottom." As Trump would say....How sad.


Agree with you 100%.....

This whole Kavanugh hearing is almost making me want to vote on party lines come mid terms. Typically I am open and listen to both sides and see which way they are on certain subjects.... but it is pushing more and more to one sided. I am sure you see what side I am leaning... LOL

But honestly listening to Booker, Feinstein, Harris, Shummer, Koblachar, etc... are making me want to uke:

Also it is so sad that they didn't even give Kavanaugh a chance when they come out before even the first initial hearing (interview) saying they will vote no!!! That isn't a democracy.... that is a dictatorship or trying to hold a country hostage. It is all because of the hatred towards the president. Like I mentioned in the Trump thread..... socially he is an idiot.... but what he is doing for the country....ie: trade deals, economy, taxes, deregulation, etc. Is all positive. I mean nothing has been said about how he made if so federal employee's don't have to join the union if they don't want too. Which IMHO is good. Because if you don't believe in the Union and want to keep those dues in your pocket you can. But if you want the representation... you pay those dues. Because I know a lot of people who are anti-union but are forced to pay those dues.

Like I have said over and over. No matter what political party you belong to you are in the minority. 40% are dems, 40% are Rep, 20% are independent or moderate. When one side says it is my way or the highway you are not governing for all you are governing for few!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

You are probably right Chuck.....but you forget how many Republicans came out and said they would vote "yes" before any interviews were even started. They said.....if Trump has nominated someone. I will vote yes. You name all those Democrats.....How is the leader of the senate any different? McConnel is just as 1 sided. If liberals want it.....he's against it. And is Linsay Graham any better.....labeling Ford's testimony as pure garbage. Awesome sympathy for someone who just might be telling the truth.

I belonged to the teachers union for 35 years.....w/o unions we would be living in the stone age. ALL perks workers now enjoy would not be here. *80 hour weeks,no sick leave, no vacation, kids still working in factories, no safety rules, no retirement, no social security, no medicare etc. Yes you should not be forced to join a union if you don't want to. But just think what it would be like if you lived 100 years ago.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The few moderates in the middle like me


 :rollin: Can't help myself. I worked with a guy who said he was moderate and complained about how conservative the universities are. Ken your going to have to stop jumping the gun on all these stories if you want me to believe that moderate story. :thumb:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck check your PM box I am sending you a new password.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The new password worked for me when I had the same problem.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Confirmed!!!! 50/48.

Congratulations Justice Kavanaugh!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I had said that Kavanaugh would be on the supreme court by Monday, but he is already sworn in.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken,

I agree with you 100% on the unions. They were very effective tools and did good/great things for the workers of our country. But now with all of the government controls and laws in place.... are they needed as much?? Why do you think the Union's wanted exemption from the ACA.... because medical is about the only bargaining chip they have left. Work place conditions are checked on by the government, safety checked on by the government, over time rules are in place, vacation/sick pay are regulated as well, minimum wages regulated (but this could be argued especially for servers), etc. Again... I am not saying unions were not needed.... but are they as important as they once were?? Hence you shouldn't force people to join if they don't want too.

I also agree with you on how one sided all the BS has been. This is what happens when the "nuclear option" was put in force. No need to try and compromise. Just get the majority. uke:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I still think Kavanaugh was a poor choice. Trump should have yanked his nomination and chose some other conservative judge. He does not deserve to be on there. I fact he should have lost his federal appeals court judgeship also.:eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Well from all of this craziness from Kavanaugh it will be interesting the fall out of if there is a fall out.
Things that happened:
- the DOX situation and if they will just throw the guy under the bus or will it get back to a Senator
- The leaked letter.... will someone fry for this or not (Lawyers, Feinstein, Feinstein's office, etc)
- The Nuclear option... will it get removed?
- The hearing process... will it get revamped?
- The witness intimidation.... Will someone go down for that?
- The "paid" protesters.....????
- Avanetti&#8230;.. will he fade away or get in deep crap for his claim since it is all showing it was a lie.
- Will they try to impeach Kavanaugh or something along the lines of impeachment.

The list can go on and on.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I'm not sure they can impeach Kavanaugh without looking closer at the timing of this whole circumstance and what the senators involvement in it was. Feinstein's gonna try stop that because her actions raise some big questions. There were times during the hearing when she looked like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dakota.... agree with you 100% about Feinstein. She knew she screwed up when they brought up about procedure that would have kept Dr. Fords name out of everything and none of the fiasco would have happened. It would have been behind closed doors.

I don't know if they want more of an investigation. Because if true that the one witness was asked to change her testimony.... What, why, when, who, etc.... will be answered. Right now they are saying it was another "friend".... but do you want to run down that rabbit hole. Then they have to look into Feinstein, Dr. Fords lawyers, etc. Then look into the DOX and threats that have been made towards elected officials on all sides and ones to Ford/Kavanaugh. They will look into if Feinstein and crew steered Ford to these lawyers. They will look who is paying for the Lawyers.... etc.

Yet alone things they want looked at on the Kavanaugh side.... ie: was he lying about his drinking? That is what it seems they are all pointing at. Which again.... how do you know if someone "blacked out" or not??? How can you prove that? Only one person really knows if they blacked out or not. I know people use it as defense in criminal trials..... if you notice that it sometimes helps to get the charges to be less. Many have heard that defense before. So only one person can prove if they were or were not.... Kavanaugh said he hasn't blacked out! Also about the "drinking".....booze affects people differently. You can get 5 people... they all consume the same about of beer.... they wont all have the same BAC, they all wont be acting the same, etc. So again that is kind of a stupid thing to try and "catch" someone on for perjury. Because it is hard to prove beyond a doubt.

Anyways hopefully this episode will help change things for the better on the nomination process.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

KEN W said:


> Plainsman.....you hunting anything this year? i'm leaving to go pheasant hunting tomorrow. Hope we don't get snowed out on Sunday.
> 
> The Senate vote, if it happens tomorrow will be interesting.


Not a good year for pheasant hunting. Our group of 3 managed 12 birds in 2 days in the SW. Small bunches here and there. But did a lot of walking to find them. Saw quite a few hens which bodes well for the future if they make it through the winter. Other hunters at the motel said the same. Still it was nice to get out after skipping last year.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Not a good year for pheasant hunting. Our group of 3 managed 12 birds in 2 days in the SW. Small bunches here and there. But did a lot of walking to find them. Saw quite a few hens which bodes well for the future if they make it through the winter. Other hunters at the motel said the same. Still it was nice to get out after skipping last year.


How is the cover looking? I know in the area where I would hunt (If I make the trip out this year) the cover looked thin during the early goose. Not a lot of CRP or even cattail sloughs.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Cover was good. We hunted in an area where the farmers said they had good rain at the right time. CRP we hunted had good growth. Unfortunatly the big fields were tough to hunt as the birds were really scattered. I mostly posted. My 2 brothers walked 17 miles in 2 days. They were pooped by the end of the day. We were planning on staying today. But by mid day yesterday it really started to snow so we headed for home.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Trump......"Disgraceful situation brought about false accusations made by people that are evil. Behavior was absolutely atrocious." Trump the bigoted loser shines again. Trump = me,me,me,me and the h*ll with everyone else. uke: uke:

Trump saying he is innocent until proven guilty.....Isn't this the same guy who kept chanting...."Lock her up?" Guess you are only innocent if it benefits your side.....otherwise you are guilty.

Though FBI did not find corroboration it did not say they were false.

At least Kavanaugh did not make those kind of garbage statements. He said he will be serving 1 nation not one party. Good for him.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Trump and the Senate Republicans calling the Kavanaugh demonstrations mob rule. Where were these guys when the Tea Party was demonstrating violently against Obama Care and had to be arrested. Where were they when protesters were walking around carrying AR15's. Women walking around protesting and wearing black shirts saying "Nasty Mama."

Oh wait a minute.....that only pertains to people that are against your views. Not when your people are doing the exact same thing.Total hypcrapsy

Graham, McConnel and Grassly should be ashamed of themselves. :******:

Imaprtiality has a long way to go.

Now Nikki Haley will resign.There are now only 5 women left in the cabinet. Soon it will be the white boys club. :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

McConnell has broken the Senate. By refusing even to meet with President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, and by blocking hearings on his nomination, McConnell deeply harmed the comity on which the Senate is supposed to run.

McConnell invoked the 60-vote rule to block Obama's nominees nearly as often as it had been used in all previous history.Under all the presidents before Obama, 86 nominations had been blocked by filibuster. In just the Obama presidency alone, McConnell used the filibuster to block 82. Now he had the guts to lower it back to a simple majority when almost half the senators voted no. "I guess I am always right and you aren't" is the way this guy lives. And people wonder why DC is a mess of one sidedness?????

Well turn about is fair play. They now have a blueprint to get even and you can bet they will. So we will live more '"years in a divided country. Thank you Senator McConnel. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ken, I'll say it again, Obama was a lame duck, Trump is not. Historically lame ducks have left the nomination to the incoming president. Historically it has never been that way for mid terms.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman, I will say it again.....an election is an election......that's every 2 years. How far before the election is the president a lame duck. Antonin Scalia died Feb 16, 2016. That's 9 months before the next election. So when the Dems take over Congress next month, will Trump be a lame duck for 2 years? So he should not make another appointment next year if Ginsberg retires or dies because he should wait until the next presidental election in 2020?

If a Supreme dies or retires and there is at least time for a new nomination and confirmation hearing, then the appointment should be made. Regardless of who is president. It should not be held up just for political reasons. :eyeroll:


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

Not meeting with Garland was due to the Biden Rule from June 1992 when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/p ... -1992.html

You can blame it on the dems for pulling that crap first!.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

When Obama nominated most of the republicans voted for that person even when they didn't like them. I think that's a mistake because the liberals don't interpret the constitution they twist it to fit their agenda. The republicans compromise, but the democrats do not. Kavanaugh is better than any that Obama nominated, but the democrats ate uncivilized.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Speck......from that article......

Hours after archival C-Span video clips of the speech began circulating, Mr. Biden issued a statement saying that his remarks had been misinterpreted, and stressing that he believed, then and now, that the White House and Congress should "work together to overcome partisan differences" on Supreme Court nominations. He had a record of moving such candidates during his time as chairman of the judiciary panel, he said.

"Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year," Mr. Biden said. "This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject."

So at what point in a president's term should he not be able to appoint Supremes? 1 month.....3 months.....9 months....1 year?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman.....how about the Republican's treatment of Ford. Especially Grassly, Graham, and McConnel? Wow.....what compromisers they are. The shoe fits the other foot also. Calling her testemony garbage. Proclaiming mob rule. When the Tea Partyers did exactly the same thing. The ultra far right Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats. Even more so.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Not even close. They even offered to go to her in California because she was afraid to fly. We now know that's a lie. Her best friend said it never happened. The people she identified said it never happened. She didn't know how she got there, where she was when she got there, and she don't know how she got home. She distinctly remembers she had one beer. Her polygraph was a joke, and body language experts say she was lying. Democrats treat the innocent terribly. If Ford was a conservative they would rip her apart like mad dogs.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken,

They are coming out NOW saying it is garbage. After the FBI investigations. We don't know what was 100% in the investigation. We do know by the word of her friend is that someone tried to tell her to lie or "change" her statements. The flying issue? The second door issue? Was other things like that found out? We don't know.

But before the spectacle of the "hearing" the Republicans tried hard to make it easy for her.
1. Go to her so she didn't have to travel.... who dropped the ball not telling her? Lawyers, Feinstein???
2. Have the independent (lose term) do the questioning instead of "old white men". Which everyone was screaming they didn't what the old white men. But then when they get someone else... THEY ARE COWARDS.... Come on now. Cant ***** about one thing and then they do what you ask..... get a woman to ask the questions and you still *****.
3. They wanted it go to her to keep it "private"..... again who dropped the ball and might get charges???

Then we wont even talk about how after caving for the FBI investigation I knew 100% that they would ***** because it was done "too quickly".... that would have been the case if it got done anytime before the midterm elections.

I wont even touch the fact that Grassley basicly said what would happen with the investigation.... no conclusions, no "verdicts" of guilt or innocence, etc. That is what happened. What might have been found out is more "political" motive by the comments made by some of the senators. Especially Grassely. If you go back and see all his remarks before the hearing... very accomidating, open, etc. Afterwards... not so much.

Now onto the fact about the Garland.... it was 9 months when Scailia died. So lets say Obama takes a month or so to nominate garland... which I think that was about the time frame. You have 3 months for the committee to do the interviews and dig up stuff.... so that puts it roughly July.... Congress adjorned for summer recess July 15-Sept 6th in 2016. So some of the hearings and interviews wouldn't have happened until Sept.... So it would be like what happened now.... roughly end of sept confirmation. So that is 2 months before the election of a president. That is why they do the procedure or "custom" of letting the new incoming president pic the next justice.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Just read this...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP

So Grassley is common sense on this.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good find Chuck. That should settle the little debate about this mid term being the same. That's like thinking pigs and chickens are the same species.


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

KEN W said:


> Speck......from that article......
> 
> Hours after archival C-Span video clips of the speech began circulating, Mr. Biden issued a statement saying that his remarks had been misinterpreted, and stressing that he believed, then and now, that the White House and Congress should "work together to overcome partisan differences" on Supreme Court nominations. He had a record of moving such candidates during his time as chairman of the judiciary panel, he said.
> 
> ...


Ken, you were stating McConnel broke the Senate by not meeting with Garland. I was simply showing you the precedence was set by Biden, and the Dems paid for his statement from 1992. 
Bidens' statement you quoted above was recent when it became apparent his actions from 1992 were going to bite the dems in the arse with Garland.

I am a firm believer that the Supreme Court is to be a non-political and judge strictly based on the constitutionality of a case, NOT a political arm of government that the dems are pushing now.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I am a firm believer that the Supreme Court is to be a non-political and judge strictly based on the constitutionality of a case, NOT a political arm of government that the dems are pushing now.


That is what the supreme court is meant to be. It doesn't "make laws".... it sees if the laws on the books go against the constitution..... ie: bill of rights.

Just like I started a thread "food for thought"..... I read somewhere that someone stated is think about the people who are fighting for 1st amendment rights for twitter, social media, etc. are the same ones who think the 2nd amendment only relates to muskets!

The supreme court would look at all of this and see if advancements go against the constitution and bill of rights.... :beer: They don't make new laws. They rule on the laws that are on the books. That is what people don't think about.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Had to follow this one up. Now the accusers are starting to admit they made things up simply to keep Kavanaugh out of the court.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ing-rape-/


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I was also going to post that up as well....

Chickens are coming to roost!! Hopefully people will notice this come Tuesday and in the future. Again look at the people who ran with the story and instantly said he was guilty.... Waters, Booker, Feinstein (but then she back pedaled in a hurry), etc.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

A little more about the Kavanaugh issue...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The Kavanaugh thing is wearing off. We are beyond that. Most likely will make little difference in if the Dems take control of at least the House.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The Kavanaugh thing is wearing off. We are beyond that.


 Were not beyond it until these lying women are behind bars. It sounds like the are close to having Ford in a corner too.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

KEN W said:


> The Kavanaugh thing is wearing off. We are beyond that. Most likely will make little difference in if the Dems take control of at least the House.


That statement is reprehensible and a testament to how far the liberal party will go to destroy anyone that opposes them. Like Hillary stating about the Benghazi boondoggle " At this point what difference does it make."


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Typical hatred garbage. Far right will do ANYTHING to get their way. As evidence of Tiny Trump and his fear mongering about the country being overrun by illegals.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Typical hatred garbage. Far right will do ANYTHING to get their way. As evidence of Tiny Trump and his fear mongering about the country being overrun by illegals.


 Ken where is the hatred? Is it in those who want justice, or those who were willing to destroy someone simply because they didn't like him? You may still argue that Ford was telling the truth, but time will tell. When that time comes if she was lying will you then admit the hatred was on the left. They would not only have kept him from the supreme court, they would have destroyed his entire career and perhaps his family. When you do that to an innocent man that's hatred.

As far as being overrun with illegals. We don't have a good handle on the numbers, but we know it's at least 11 million illegals and they say the number could be twice that. That's a significant portion of our population. How many do we need before your concerned. One illegal is one to many. They can't be that good a person if you commit a crime to be here.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Look...above Huntin.....reprehensible means hatred in my book . Tone it down or expect in kind. :eyeroll:

Trump has said and I quote...."illegals will overrun your communities."

I am all for stopping illegals from coming here. But if you have been seeing what he is saying. He is trying to make fear of illegals into a campaign message And doing it for a couple of weeks. I REALLY resent him saying Democrats are in favor of caravan after caravan of illegals coming here. That is total BULL SCHIT.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> The Kavanaugh thing is wearing off. We are beyond that. Most likely will make little difference in if the Dems take control of at least the House.


So is the Mueller thing wearing off?? OH NO.... still a talking point and nothing has been found against TRUMP! That has been going on for over 18 months. No evidence linking trump to Russia. But still a hot button and still getting talked about in the current political races.

But Kavanaugh was a month ago and a total circus. Yet that has wore off!! WOW... im speechless.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I am all for stopping illegals from coming here. But if you have been seeing what he is saying. He is trying to make fear of illegals into a campaign message And doing it for a couple of weeks. I REALLY resent him saying Democrats are in favor of caravan after caravan of illegals coming here. That is total BULL SCHIT.


Ken...

You are correct his comments are making this seem like a complete invasion. In some of the communities in Texas, AZ, etc. They might see this as "over run" but the rest of the nation not so much. So yes he is blowing smoke.

But you say Dem's are in favor of caravan after caravan.... well some dem's are running on abolishing ICE, Sanctuary cities, easy citizenship, etc. So yes he is accurate on that front. Some/many Dem's are in favor of all of this. But you are correct not all are. Just like all Trump supporters are not "racist", "Nazi's", "Facisists", "uneducated", etc. I could go on and on what people have said or even the media is saying about Trump supporters.

The old saying don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.... well it goes both ways! :bop:


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

I'm sorry. But if you support using false statements to destroy someone and their family because of politics what word is more appropriate? Inexcusable? Inappropriate? Immoral? Pick one or another more suitable and less inflammatory. Again, I apologize if I offended you but this mentality is very troublesome to me.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

In reviewing my previous post I felt compelled to clarify as it may be construed as disingenuous. Not trying to call you names or be mean spirited. This is a very troublesome trend in our country. Much more destructive than, say Harry Reed standing on the senate floor and blatantly lieing that Mitt Romney hadn't paid his taxes for ten years. Or president Trump stating that an illegal immigrant caravan is an invasion. This is taking the full power of a specific political party, it representives serving in Congress, colluding and using false accusations and testimony to destroy a citizen because of political differences. I don't care whether it's democrat or republican, Catholic, Protestant or Muslim. Whether it's white, black, asian, or native american. It makes me shudder. It makes me frightened to be a member of a society that brushes it off or condones it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I REALLY resent him saying Democrats are in favor of caravan after caravan of illegals coming here. That is total BULL SCHIT.


 Not really, the democrats in Washington have many in favor of the caravans. Like Chuck said they want to abolish ice. Also the mainstream media is not reporting, and I have heard from other sources that Beto ORourke has been funneling campaign money to the caravan. At this point I would not state it as fact, but I hope the truth comes out whatever it may be. 
I do think Trump is right about this being an invasion. What is really sick is if this country has a set number of immigrants we can take in and the illegals push those who would come legally out of a chance to come here. Just who do they think they are and why do they see themselves more important than those who do things right?

Maybe this doesn't bother the democrats because we all know how the illegals will vote. We had some news at Bible study today that the government is trying to control Christian Universities by saying they must teach X and must not teach Y if their students have gov loans. I'll give you two guesses which party is behind the battle with God.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Trump continuously saying there is an army of illegals coming to invade our country with MS13 gangsters and crash through our southern border. He is telling non stop lies as fast as he can utter them. Trying to set a campaign on fear,lies and divisiveness. NO other politician I can ever remember exaggerates and lies like him. It is day after day.

Not even Nixon,Clinton or any other president lies like him. You continuously say.....Oh Clinton lied about this ....One example. Trump does this non stop. And Republicans let him do it. Why aren't you guys protesting about it. I guess it's because you like other things he does. Well that doesn't make it OK!!!!

Now today he has said....."my biggest regret so far is TONE of my presidency." Well it's a little late. Maybe he is softening up his tone because he realizes he just could have to deal with a Dem House.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

He said he would like to soften his tone, but couldn't. He was under constant attack and was simply defending himself. You and I would do the same thing if CNN called us liars every day. His tweets irritate the left because they inform the American people of the truth.

As far as name calling I guess you can count me as one of the deplorables.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

Some of the "lies" that people keep talking about are his over exaggerations. Like him stating, "this is the best ever"... then they show that something was better. Which I don't take as a lie I take it as a guy saying he caught a 10 lbs walleye then when you get it on the scale it is only 7 lbs. Or someone saying they shot a "huge buck" and it scored 180 inches... then you put the tape to it and it is 150" buck.

This caravan thing.... there are no solid numbers yet on how many are in it. They don't know if there are MS13 gang members or not. The reporting is all over the place on this. So you cant say he is lying.

Please tell me some of his lies that he has told that isn't exaggerations? Please inform me. Because all I have seen are exaggerations for the most part. If you bring up Stormy... he was following the non-disclosure agreement and denying! Again he was following a legal (what he thought was binding) agreement. So you are bound by that.... by law!

Also most politicians lie every time they open their mouths. No matter what side.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Chuck.....I haven't seen anyone except Trump or Republicans running for office say those things. No Democrat anywhere is saying this caravan is an invasion. It is all over the place because Republicans are the ones saying it. The media isn't saying those things either.

If you exaggerate statements like caravan after caravan after caravan full of criminals coming to invade our country just to get votes with no basis.... And there is only 1.....that is an out and out lie


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

> Guatemalan intelligence discovered people from India, Bangladesh, Africa had also joined in with the caravan," journalist Sara Carter Tweeted from Guatemala. "I bumped into a number of young MS 13 gang members."
> 
> Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales told American reporters that his country has detained roughly 100 terrorism suspects, some of whom were ISIS members. Morales reportedly made the comments during a speech at a conference in Washington D.C. over the weekend. "[W]e have not only detained [terrorists] within our territory, but they have been deported to their country of origin," Morales said in reference to his efforts since taking office in 2016.


https://aminewswire.org/stories/3419/

Just because the liberal news in this country isn't reporting it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Trump may exaggerate, but I don't believe he is lying about this caravan. The Democrats won't call it an invasion, they see it as an influx of new voters.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> If you exaggerate statements like caravan after caravan after caravan full of criminals coming to invade our country just to get votes with no basis.... And there is only 1.....that is an out and out lie


Ken... how many caravans so far in 2018 have been reported? I know of at least two to my memory. So is that an inaccurate statement? Possibly... but two with about 15000 people (that we know of). So two or more in a year. Also like I mentioned nobody knows the demographics of this caravan. But yes in the last one there were some criminals that came. It might not be full of "murderers".... but there was criminals. I think I read somewhere on that first one that it caught something like 10 fugitives from the government. Also people had criminal records of theft, battery, child abuses, etc. So yes... there was some criminals in the mix. Now granted will that mean they wild be criminals here in the USA... no it doesn't.

But lets take a look at the border to the north of us. If you want to travel to Canada you cant have a DUI on your record, you cant have theft on your record, you cant have a felony on your record. So why should we be any different.

Also still waiting on the lie after lie after lie.

Like I mentioned.... I see exaggeration after exaggeration. Which frankly is getting old very old.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Has anyone seen what is coming out now about this whole fiasco.....

Mrs. Ford's own attorney is coming out saying that the reasoning for her client to attack Kavanaugh was because of Roe vs Wade...&#8230; not because of what she accused him of.

I hope they go after her for Libel.... :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW7qGXk ... e=youtu.be

Was she more of a puppet for a "movement" or what is going on. Again take this with a grain of salt because the guy is selling a book. But it could get interesting.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> The Kavanaugh thing is wearing off. We are beyond that. Most likely will make little difference in if the Dems take control of at least the House.


Has this worn off??? Now with the outright lying by the NY Times and other media outlets. This isn't a new allegation at all. It is the same one they looked into. Same one where the lady didn't remember a thing. Same one where people were coming at her to tell her to lie about it. Same lady who stood her ground and said she doesn't remember a thing. All this new one is that someone knew someone who said that they saw this happen. Yes all BS. Also the NY Times editors took out key parts that were in the article.

But if it has "worn off".... why would the NY Times publish this piece now?

Then lets not forget about some of the people running for president and other elected officials immediately jumped on the band wagon again about impeachment.

I am glad some people on the left have sense and also what they think about all this "impeachment" BS...



> *Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., was asked Monday about the prospects of Democrats taking up an effort to impeach Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and he responded, "Get real," according to a report.*
> 
> Calls to impeach Kavanaugh came after an essay in The New York Times brought to light separate sexual misconduct allegations against him dating back to his time at Yale University. The Times reported that the FBI did not investigate the claim.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

The saddest part of all of this is that the next nomination NO MATTER WHO NOMINATES THEM.... will be much worse than what happened to Kavanaugh.

It is a disgrace what our media, elected officals, and society has become. All for political BS. They would all rather sling mud instead of find news. They would rather be a tabloid than be a journalist. Same goes for ALL elected officals. The majority are just trying to keep their butts in office instead of doing good for the country and its people. Yes this isn't a REP vs Dem thing... it is all of them doing this. uke:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/17/wi ... 1E.twitter

More stuff showing the that the NY times is full of crap. Granted this is from the Federalist new so it is slanted. But read what some people are quoted as saying. These would be witnesses to the Ramierez allegations. The one in the book that these people are trying to sell.

Also people need to realize that these people are trying to sell a book. So again... not anything "NEW" just people trying to sell a book about old allegations. :bop:


----------

