Utopia Talk / Politics / Good guy Kavanaugh v enemies of humanity

Rugian Member	Sat Sep 29 12:22:58 Continue.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 29 12:46:31 I would have gone with "Saint Kavanaugh" in thread title
Daemon Member	Sat Sep 29 12:58:33 "Alpha male Kavanaugh"
Rugian Member	Sat Sep 29 13:04:59 That's being saved for the next thread's title. Assuming tw doesn't beat me in posting a "Harbringer of the apocalypse Kavanaugh" thread first of course.
Dukhat Member	Sat Sep 29 13:10:40 http://www...-a-hero-to-the-incel-community Defending against sexual-assault allegations, the Supreme Court nominee said he was a virgin in high school. Incels took notice. In response to that line, incel forums lit up with discussion of the Supreme Court nominee, with one user saying they now saw Kavanaugh as one of them. David Futtrelle, a writer who tracks right-wing internet groups like incels, noted on his blog that the Fox News interview appeared to have earned Kavanaugh “some enthusiastic new fans.” “Kavanaugh being an incel once makes me him more lol,” wrote one poster in an incel forum. Another poster wrote that Kavanaugh’s claim about his virginity boosted his support for the nominee “to 110%,” while one user on a Reddit forum devoted to incels said that Kavanaugh had inspired a new kind of incel, “Kavanaughcels.” ************** So Rugian is a Kavanaughcel now.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 13:20:54 Sen Cassidy said that the FBI should probe whether or not Senate Democrats are, in fact, intentionally looking to delay the confirmation process. There has been a pattern of leaks, Cassidy said, to assassinate Kavanaugh's character. http://ins...i-should-investigate-democrats i'm aware of no pattern of leaks i think there should be an FBI investigation of Cassidy's smears of the Democrats
Rugian Member	Sat Sep 29 13:31:30 "So Rugian is a Kavanaughcel now." That may amazingly be even worse than Trumpicantard in terms of rolling off the tongue. And I'm not the one who was such a shut-in back in the day that I couldn't tell the difference between blacking out and falling asleep, you pancake-faced robot.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 13:47:59 it was Kavanaugh who created the confusion: Q: have you ever passed out from drinking? A: <stammering>... 'passed out' would be no, but I’ve gone to sleep, but I’ve never blacked out, that's the allegation
Rugian Member	Sat Sep 29 13:50:17 tw, To which Dukhat responded by saying Kavanaugh was an idiot for thinking those were two different things.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 13:53:42 i don't know what thread that was in to review, but Kavanaugh sounded like an idiot for denying he passed out, and only that he went to sleep the prosecutor was actually asking him questions about his behavior so is probably why they pulled her out & went back to having the senators just use their time to attack the Dems
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 13:59:37 ok i found it in demon spawn thread :p ... but still it was Kavanaugh also creating the error he was panicked about all alcohol questions
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 14:13:13 coincidentally there's an article about Kavanaugh & blackouts <a long article, tried to trim out some more notable bits imo>: --- ... I want to be clear, up front, that I cannot know whether Judge Kavanaugh experienced a blackout. But what I do know is that blackouts are both common and tragically misunderstood. Before the prosecutor Rachel Mitchell was mysteriously dispatched, she was aiming toward the above line of inquiry. “Have you ever passed out from drinking?” she asked. Kavanaugh’s answer was dismissive but slightly confusing: “I’ve gone to sleep, but I’ve never blacked out. That’s the allegation? That’s wrong.” A few clarifications. First, I dare you to find the heavy drinker who hasn’t passed out from too much booze. To say you were just sleeping is like my dad saying he’s resting his eyes when he’s napping. It’s a semantic dodge. ... [then some explanation of blackouts] ... “Piecing things together” is a phrase that jumped out at me when I read Judge Kavanaugh’s 2014 speech to the Yale Law School Federalist Society, in which he describes drunken heroics as a routine part of campus life; Senator Richard Blumenthal also leapt on this at the hearing, although Judge Kavanaugh deflected the inquiry, as he did every question about any possible dark side to his consumption. ... I believe Mr. Judge when he swears he doesn’t remember the incident that Christine Blasey Ford described. I also think that absence of information might have been why, assuming Dr. Blasey’s recollection is correct, he had such a queasy reaction when he ran into her at a grocery store. I used to get a hideous gnawing sensation when I stumbled across people I’d blacked out around, because I did not know. What had I said? What had I done? The sheer unknowing rattled me. Mr. Judge describes this terror in his memoir “Wasted,” where he tells the story of a wedding rehearsal dinner where he got so blasted he doesn’t remember the evening’s end. A friend informs him the next day that he tried to take off his clothes and “make it” with a bridesmaid. Mr. Judge’s response cuts me. “Please tell me I didn’t hurt her,” he said. ... I suspect we’ll never know whether Brett Kavanaugh experienced blackouts as a young drinker. I suspect he’ll never know, because what I took from the man at his hearing was that he was not interested in going there. Those days are gone; he has closed the door on that era. http://www...anaugh-drinking-blackouts.html
Pillz Member	Sat Sep 29 14:20:40 You should reflect on where you went wrong in life, that this matters at all to you tumbleweed.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 14:24:37 what politics section of what news organization is not talking about this? how is it mattering to just me specifically :p
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 14:33:10 i also followed O.J. & Scott Peterson & George Zimmerman & to a lesser extent Casey Anthony... it's the national crime drama of the day
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 14:35:27 ...and Mike Brown & that 'loud music' trial (that wasn't about loud music)
Forwyn Member	Sat Sep 29 15:07:26 Any person who can't understand the difference between passing out on the couch and blacking out while still being conscious is utterly retarded, probably intentionally so.
McKobb Member	Sat Sep 29 15:11:26 I've only blacked out once, when I lived in Berkeley. Never again! Thats also when I learned gymnasts use the pipe.
Dukhat Member	Sat Sep 29 15:12:57 Yeah, I am pretty much a near teetotaler and none of my friends are drunk retards like Mark Judge either. But I definitely do know that even having a little too much to drink can impair your memory. If you fall asleep while drunk, you almost certainly don't remember everything anyways. Let's see what the FBI finds out.
Pillz Member	Sat Sep 29 15:42:05 Cuckhat can't hold his wine coolers
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 18:34:22 possibly a sham of an investigation if this is accurate: "the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity" ... "Two sources familiar with the investigation said the FBI will also not be able to examine why Kavanaugh’s account of his drinking at Yale University differs from those of some former classmates, who have said he was known as a heavy drinker." http://www...egations-against-brett-n915061 why should the White House decide who can be interviewed
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 22:27:34 TW, for the umpteenth time, it is not the job of the FBI to investigate alleged sex assaults that took place 36 years ago. They are only able to do background checks, which means they are not going to discover anything new. You are being bamboozled by democratic politicians, like Corey "I am like Spartacus" Booker, who is basically filibustering solely in the hopes of building up enough tasty sound bites for his 2020 pres run. Also, Cuckhat admits he doesn't drink... explains how he doesn't understand what high school parties are like, doesn't know the difference between blacking out and passing out and assumes people who enjoy a drink at 10 in the morning must be rampaging alcoholics.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 22:35:05 they don't reach conclusions... they can question anyone willing and report their findings, that is useful information unfortunately they may have some extra shackles beyond the time limit
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 22:37:20 "shackles" yeah TW, we are very aware that random people are going to be coming out of the wood work, we are not going to waste time investigating all of them, especially when they have zero evidence of anything, or corroborating witnesses. but hey, it is funny to see that you have already picked up the talking point liberal politicians will use when the fbi turns in their findings and conclude that there is not enough evidence of anything to pursue it further.
hood Member	Sat Sep 29 22:39:09 "it is not the job of the FBI to investigate alleged sex assaults that took place 36 years ago." It is if congress says it is.
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 22:40:48 no. That is the job of local police departments. Fed jurisdiction isn't whatever congress says. Fortunately. Again, they can do a back ground check, or interviews. But unless a crime (alleged or not) happened on federal land, it isn't within their authority to investigate.
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 22:41:25 Or unless it is a crime that is a federal crime.
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 22:41:34 Which sex assault ain't.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 22:41:54 I'm not using a talking point... IF the above comments are true (white house deciding who can be talked to) it IS unwarranted shackles, they already have a time limit and set scope, nothing needs added it's not about new accusers, that would be covered by the scope limitation for example if Swisher not on the approved list it's bullshit (his drinking buddy who said he got blackout drunk, whom he dodged question about)
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 22:44:51 TW, what does him getting black out drunk during his college years have anything to do with his tenure as a clerk and a judge?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 22:45:41 if Mark Judge says 'no, I wasn't asking if Brett had farted yet, that's retarded'... bam, prison for Kavanaugh unless he gets special treatment...
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 22:46:31 if he got black out drunk then he's a liar... on multiple things
hood Member	Sat Sep 29 22:46:37 The FBI don't handle crimes on federal land. That's fucking retarded and you're fucking retarded. Pretty much everything you say can be categorically rejected as pure stupidity at this point, that's how fucking retarded you are. "Federal land." Holy fuck.
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 22:46:49 Tumble "I want to send people i don't agree with to prison for any reason" weed
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 22:47:57 "The FBI don't handle crimes on federal land." Incorrect, this is why they were able to investigate the anita hill shit, because that occurred on federal land, and so they had jurisdiction. But yeah Hood, continue to think that the FBI can investigate anything congress want's them to investigate. Jurisdiction doesn't exist, apparently.
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 22:49:37 i mean, FFS, this is why the FBI are the only ones able to investigate murders and kidnappings on Indian reservations, that is considered federal land and gives them jurisdiction over tribal police.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 22:51:51 the two most likely truths are 1) Ford was assaulted but misremembering who did it (and this wasn't a repressed memory, she has never forgotten) non-Retrumplicants do believe she was assaulted (very strong evidence she's not lying on that point) Or 2) Kavanaugh did assault her but doesn't remember as he was so heavily drunk (as many people suggest he got) I've heard no one arguing assault victims tend to remember a different attacker... traumatic events stick in your mind
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 22:54:58 if you want to argue that drunken high school assaults shouldn't sink your career, that would've been fine to battle but he has gone the route of denying even the possibility, and misleadingly claiming everyone named denied it
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 22:56:53 actually her story has changed multiple times, for example when she first told her therapist about this in 2012 she claimed there were 4 guys in the room. memory can be shifted and changed by association and by suggestion. She was heavily drunk, she can't remember when it happened, she can't remember where it happened, she can't remember who else was in the house and she can't remember how she got home. But she remembers it was Bret who tried to rape her, but no one else remembers anything like that and she had no physical markings to suggest it was a violent escape. So yes TW, none of this would stand in court and it comes off as a drunken delusion of a woman who probably had a bad event but was too drunk to remember it exactly and just filled in the blanks with people she knew at that period of time in her life. There is zero reason to believe what she says actually happened, she can't provide anything to prove it ever happened. In our society we believe in the presumption of innocence, otherwise we are going back to Salem witch trials.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 22:57:36 also, not sure why you are fighting this FBI battle they ARE going out and interviewing witnesses, and that WILL produce statements that will provide some amount of information, perhaps little, but will be more than Judge's short statement via lawyer for example you've already lost 'the FBI doesn't do this' argument
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 23:00:56 the FBI is not doing what you think they are doing. They are doing background checks, they are not investigating a sex crime. Because there is no sex crime to investigate. All they are doing is calling people asking if they heard about this incident at the time, something people have already gone on record saying they hadn't. That is it TW. They are going to report the same thing the local PD did a week ago when they said there was not enough evidence to merit opening a case. You will not be happy with that and the pillar of society you worship are going to use it as a sign that the FBI was shackled by Trump to further attempt to stall/excuse their idiotic reasoning to side with a woman over a man in a he said she said situation.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 23:02:38 regarding 4 in the room, her testimony is the therapist just had an error in her notes, not impossible there was a misunderstanding when she was describing no one has suggested she was heavily drunk she DID remember who was in the house for the most part, as well as details of the house and room not remembering how she got home, or the address, or the date is not shocking the memories directly related to the traumatic event would be what sticks
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 23:04:09 And the reason why i am so frustrated about the FBI angle is because it is solely a PR move to trick morons. Giving the democrats the ability to say "The fbi is investigating Kav" feeds morons the wrong premise that the FBI is actually investigating a sex crime committed by Kav. They aren't. They are doing the same background checks they did before, 5 times. But morons hear "FBI, Kavanaugh, sex crime" and they conclude there is actually smoke that will lead to a fire. When in reality, there is absolutely nothing here and if it wasn't the court of public opinions (which the democrats know how to dominate and republicans are afraid of) this would never have been taken seriously.
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 23:05:10 "not remembering how she got home, or the address, or the date is not shocking " "the memories directly related to the traumatic event would be what sticks" like the date... the way she got home and the address?
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 23:08:24 If he had a history of this sort of behavior, then there would be smoke and i'd be out there saying someone like him should've be out on the supreme court. But you are taking the side of one woman who is literally destroying his life without providing any corroborating witnesses or evidence, and you are doing it solely because you are fully in the "Resist" movement. and that is gross.
hood Member	Sat Sep 29 23:24:50 "The FBI don't handle crimes on federal land." In my haste to reply I missed a just in this sentence.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 23:26:14 if 9/11 wasn't named "9/11" would you remember it happened on 9/11? ...not the best example :p i don't know if you've had traumas, but i suspect if so that you don't recall the date (unless it was somehow special like a birthday or related to the trauma) and give up on your FBI line of attack... it's happening, info is being gathered... in fact it will probably be helpful in getting Kavanaugh confirmed (allows Murkowski & Collins to justify voting yes if nothing found)
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 23:31:55 one of my best friends hanged themselves, i tend to remember the date it happened.
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 23:33:24 and not just the specific date, but the days around it, to better specify the date and why i got the specific call at that specific time. so not remembering the date of a traumatic event sounds like a lot of bullshit to me, again i am not calling her a liar, but she hasn't provided anything but some memory she claims to have without providing ANYTHING to support it. So, if it is true, I am sorry that happened to her, but we can't ruin someone's life over her word.
hood Member	Sat Sep 29 23:38:01 "one of my best friends hanged themselves, i tend to remember the date it happened." Conversely, the only reason I remember a few dates of traumatic things is because I turned them into a password. Else, I would just remember that one happened in January after the wildcard round of the NFL playoffs.
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 23:40:25 regardless, hood, you remembered it.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 23:41:48 "and why i got the specific call at that specific time" sounds like you have a reference point as to the time do you think all the altar boys know what dates the priests were groping their balls?
hood Member	Sat Sep 29 23:43:10 Yes, because it's a password I use daily. I couldn't for the life of me tell you the date my dad pissed me off so bad I almost punched his face in. It was probably sometime in June, maybe. Definitely summer. I can describe exactly what happened. No idea the date or day of the week.
Pillz Member	Sat Sep 29 23:45:24 I'm unable to recall any dates of anything.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 23:48:35 for what it's worth, Ford did try to help narrow down the date... she knew she ran into Judge who was working at a supermarket ~6-8 weeks after (so his employment record would narrow down) especially if he only worked summers, that would exclude August for example
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 23:49:02 "do you think all the altar boys know what dates the priests were groping their balls? " in my life experience, when you encounter fairly dramatic events in your life, you tend to remember a lot surrounding it (what you were doing when it happened, how you reacted after etc). So yes, I suspect rape victims are pretty confident when they happened and can detail who dropped them off, who did it, who they spoke to after, what they did after. @hood - point is you made the effort, by no one else but you, to save that date. As in, traumatic event causes you to make sure you don;t forget it. wanting to knock out your old man isn't a big deal tbh, i think every son has that moment in their lives.
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 23:50:56 let me fix that statement. "@hood - point is you made the effort, by no one else but you, to save that date. As in, traumatic event causes you to make sure you don;t forget it. " Point is you made the effort and no one but you decided to save the date. Traumatic as the event was, you made sure you did not forget it
Pillz Member	Sat Sep 29 23:51:00 I have near perfect recall. I dint recall dates at all. The entire d/m/y idea is alien to me. So is the 24h clock.
hood Member	Sat Sep 29 23:57:34 "wanting to knock out your old man isn't a big deal tbh" Feeling rage is a big deal to me. It has happened only twice, ever. That was one of those times. I distinctly remember all of my actions for both instances. But, ya know, glad you think you know my experiences. It's pretty telling about your entire stance here.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Sep 29 23:58:04 i would be shocked if any 40+ year olds recall the dates of their priest gropings from decades ago i would not be shocked at them remembering the room nor the priest i would only expect them to remember how they got there if it was standard procedure, if they arrived or left by varied means i doubt the specifics would be in the memory
obaminated Member	Sat Sep 29 23:59:34 "But, ya know, glad you think you know my experiences. " i wasnt trying to be an asshole. im sorry for coming off that way.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sun Sep 30 00:00:24 I have felt rage before and have found myself, suddenly, on the other side of the room.
hood Member	Sun Sep 30 00:14:16 "i wasnt trying to be an asshole." I was only pointing out that your perspective and experience isn't universal. I assure you, my feelings aren't hurt. We're cool.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Sep 30 01:07:23 SNL skit on hearing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRJecfRxbr8 real star power for Kavanaugh... who captured his attitude pretty well i imagine not including Ford was more out of sexism than politics... plus she gave less material as fairly stable & steady
obaminated Member	Sun Sep 30 01:08:36 yeah, her looking like garth ungar isn't comedic gold.
American Democrat Member	Sun Sep 30 05:28:06 "Incorrect, this is why they were able to investigate the anita hill shit, because that occurred on federal land, and so they had jurisdiction" Kargen said this and you're repeating it. And I addressed this specifically with you. Because you want to repeat this doesn't make it correct, in fact you are in correct. You are aware that it was an order by the President for the FBI to investigate this, not because it "happened on federal land." Please understand the subject matter before you speak on it. It gets rather tiring to read your diatribe and you still repeating the same incorrect information. "There had been little organized opposition to Thomas's nomination, and his confirmation seemed assured[12] until a report of a private interview of Hill by the FBI was leaked to the press.[11][13] The hearings were then reopened, and Hill was called to publicly testify.[11][13] Hill said in the October 1991 televised hearings that Thomas had sexually harassed her while he was her supervisor at the Department of Education and the EEOC. When questioned on why she followed Thomas to the second job after he had already allegedly harassed her, she said working in a reputable position within the civil rights field had been her ambition. The position was appealing enough to inhibit her from going back into private practice with her previous firm. She only realized later in her life that this ambitious venture was a poor judgment and also explained that "at that time, it appeared that the sexual overtures ... had ended."
American Democrat Member	Sun Sep 30 05:49:28 Apparently all my information didn't paste. "September 23, 1991: Biden says in a statement reported in the Times that this is the date on which Hill agreed to allow the FBI to investigate the allegations. Then-White House deputy press secretary Judy Smith said in a statement published by Newsday on October 6, 1991, that Hill's allegations of harassment were "brought to the attention of the Judiciary Committee" on September 23 -- a time frame that differs from Hill's account -- and the committee "immediately" informed the White House. The White House then "promptly directed the FBI to conduct a full, thorough and expeditious investigation," according to the statement. September 26, 1991: Three days later, the FBI completed its investigation, and a report was submitted to the White House and the Judiciary Committee, according to Smith's statement. "The White House reviewed the report and determined that the allegation was unfounded," the statement said. "
obaminated Member	Sun Sep 30 15:56:26 "eat this doesn't make it correct, in fact you are in correct. You are aware that it was an order by the President for the FBI to investigate this, not because it "happened on federal land." " no, you moron, an FBI agent can't show up and declare supremacy unless they have jurisdiction.
obaminated Member	Sun Sep 30 15:58:04 the biggest irony is how predictable you are. you pretend like this is an issue. it isn't. but you will, without a doubt, declare the fbi didn't get to investigate this issue fully, because you are a moron and you think the fbi are investigating something. i literally know what you will do a week from now.
American Democrat Member	Sun Sep 30 16:25:13 "no, you moron, an FBI agent can't show up and declare supremacy unless they have jurisdiction. " Where have I said this? Please cite... "the biggest irony is how predictable you are. you pretend like this is an issue. it isn't. but you will, without a doubt, declare the fbi didn't get to investigate this issue fully, because you are a moron and you think the fbi are investigating something. i literally know what you will do a week from now. " I never inferred nor ever suggest any time parameters or the efficiency there of. You need to review the flow of the discussion instead of your own interjected conjectures.
American Democrat Member	Sun Sep 30 16:26:53 You, like kargen, made incorrect statements and I've corrected them. Even though you continued to do so. Do not take your ineptitude out on others because you have poor comprehension.
mexicantardnado Member	Sun Sep 30 16:44:51 duuuur facts? duuuur I made duuuur shit up duuuur because duuuur that's duuuur how I duuuuur roll duuuuur. I duuuur put duuuur words in duuuur peoples' mouths duuuuur because duuuuur i'm duuuur to weak duuuuur to make duuuur any duuuur arguments duuuuur
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Sep 30 17:37:24 i've heard the term 'drunk shaming' a couple times from Kav defenders... i'm skeptical that will catch on :p
Canadian Member	Sun Sep 30 19:45:55 A legit question would be if Kavanaugh, when smashed out of his gourd, be capable of giving consent?
Forwyn Member	Sun Sep 30 19:55:56 Only women are treated like children where alcohol and drugs are concerned.
kargen Member	Sun Sep 30 22:50:45 "You, like kargen, made incorrect statements and I've corrected them." I made statements that were not only true but actually came to happen. The truth doesn't fit your narrative so you refuse to see it.
Dukhat Member	Mon Oct 01 01:28:31 Kavanaugh's grandfather went to Yale. He said he had no connection and got in on merit. Why did he lie about so much stuff that's not even relevant? A good judge would now better.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 01 04:05:34 I am baffled why there is even a question now as to whether this guy should be appointed. Any reasonable person would have grounds to believe: He's lied on a number of occasions (before even this point) He's got a shaky grasp on the law or is dishonestly mistrepresenting others statements - either is bad. He's temprementally unfit for the role He's unable to behave in a non-partisan manner
American Democrat Member	Mon Oct 01 04:31:32 "I made statements that were not only true but actually came to happen. The truth doesn't fit your narrative so you refuse to see it. " Yeah that has been addressed, Kargen. Enjoy your delusions of grandeur. http://www...hread=83396&time=1538241553255 Kargen: "Nothing about this is something the FBI would be involved in unless asked to do so by local authorities. " Hmmm?
American Democrat Member	Mon Oct 01 04:53:53 "I am baffled why there is even a question now as to whether this guy should be appointed." Yeah, I am less concerned about the current situation and more about this inconsistencies with the truth. But that is not the agenda as they leaped bounds to be able to get Kavanaugh confirmed.
delude Member	Mon Oct 01 05:08:46 "I made statements that were not only true but actually came to happen. " You didn't, you really didn't. I remember this conversation. First you claimed the FBI would not investigate this at all because it has to be local authorities. You claimed the only reason the FBI claimed Anita Hill because it happened in a federal building, and you're a retard for even stating that, as they investigated it at the behest of President Bush at the time. I also used your brain dead logic against you and pointed out that with Kavanaugh currently as a Federal Judge, that would be jurisdiction anyways. But anyone with a god damn brain knew the FBI was going to continue its background check, gathering more details or witnesses to see. Which shown was unfounded, according to the result of that one. Regardless, you're a retard and stop portraying yourself as some fortune teller because you didn't say anything that was already factually known; FBI can investigate and they are. You actually argued against it.
delude Member	Mon Oct 01 05:09:36 You claimed the only reason the FBI *investigated Anita Hill...
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: