On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 4:56:00 PM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 9/25/2018 3:26 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 2:40:31 PM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
The latest and greatest from the esteemed gentleman from Delawa

Sen. Chris Coons, Delaware Democrat, drew double-takes on the right
Monday after insisting that the burden of proof lies with Supreme Court
nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to prove his innocence.

[skip]

It is not just Clare and a couple of other who are insufferable
assholes. Now we have a sitting senator who thinks it proper for the
accused to prove himself innocent of, as yet, unsupported charges of
sexual assault/harassment.

This statement by Coons ranks right up there with Pelosi's "we have to
pass it before we can read it" statement. There seems to be no end to
the stupidity of some Democrats and their followers. Now, it seems, the
standard is "our enemies have to prove a negative which, we all know, is
an impossibility."

What's next? "Judge Kavanaugh, do you still beat your wife?"

Don't give them any ideas. But speaking of next, I think Kavanaugh made
a mistake of going on Fox and saying that he was a virgin for years after
high school. That opened the door for any women to come forward and claim
they had sex with him, again something that will be impossible to prove
true or not at this point.

Agreed. The statement serves no earthly purpose. "I didn't do it! The
other supposed witness said that to the best of their knowledge it
didn't happen." "So and so said he wasn't even there as she claimed"
should suffice. Okay, he WAS a virgin on that date. Does it mean he
couldn't possibly have wanted to change that status? I know that at 17
I'd have given my left nut to change that status. LOL!

You're right. Now somebody else (hired by the Dems) can crawl out from
under the rocks and said that she had sex with him earlier that year.
Doesn't change a thing with respect to Ford's allegations but now the
judge is accused of being a liar in the here and now.

I always counseled persons whose background I was investigating to tell
the truth. Don't try to conceal that minor conviction for drugs,
alcohol, etc. 25 years ago. Stand on your record SINCE then and admit
it and get it out there. Don't let me find it after you've said you've
never been arrested, let alone convicted. That makes you a liar in the
present day and all but guarantees that you're toast!

I made another post in the other thread, saying that the above has already
backfired from that same interview. He also denied he was a heavy drinker.
Now they have many instances where K himself made speeches talking about
incidents he participated in that can only be described as heavy drinking.
He doesn't flat out say he was drinking heavily, but it's clearly implied.
He describes incidents of organizing party buses with drinking to baseball
games, a friend so drunk he fell down and broke a table, a friend cut off
at a bar, a professor then arguing with the bartender to get him more beers,
etc. All that will likely be brought up on Thursday, with the opposition
saying, you denied heavy drinking, but you did, you lied. Why should we
believe your other denials? It will be a disaster.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/20...ons-why/221436

Like you say, he should have simply said that like many college students
growing up then and now, he did his share of partying and drinking,
but it didn't interfere with his education, he got good grades and he
never sexually assaulted anyone.

trader_4 posted for all of us...


I made another post in the other thread, saying that the above has already
backfired from that same interview. He also denied he was a heavy drinker.
Now they have many instances where K himself made speeches talking about
incidents he participated in that can only be described as heavy drinking.
He doesn't flat out say he was drinking heavily, but it's clearly implied.
He describes incidents of organizing party buses with drinking to baseball
games, a friend so drunk he fell down and broke a table, a friend cut off
at a bar, a professor then arguing with the bartender to get him more beers,
etc. All that will likely be brought up on Thursday, with the opposition
saying, you denied heavy drinking, but you did, you lied. Why should we
believe your other denials? It will be a disaster.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/20...ons-why/221436


You believe TruthDoesn'tMatter? They are as left as a sharp turn down the
icy mountain road. Another David Brock lie factory from MoveOn.

--
Tekkie

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 2:47:27 PM UTC-4, Tekkie® wrote:
trader_4 posted for all of us...


I made another post in the other thread, saying that the above has already
backfired from that same interview. He also denied he was a heavy drinker.
Now they have many instances where K himself made speeches talking about
incidents he participated in that can only be described as heavy drinking.
He doesn't flat out say he was drinking heavily, but it's clearly implied.
He describes incidents of organizing party buses with drinking to baseball
games, a friend so drunk he fell down and broke a table, a friend cut off
at a bar, a professor then arguing with the bartender to get him more beers,
etc. All that will likely be brought up on Thursday, with the opposition
saying, you denied heavy drinking, but you did, you lied. Why should we
believe your other denials? It will be a disaster.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/20...ons-why/221436


You believe TruthDoesn'tMatter? They are as left as a sharp turn down the
icy mountain road. Another David Brock lie factory from MoveOn.

--
Tekkie

Do you think they made up the specific quotes from Kavanaugh, where he's
doing all the bragging about drinking and partying? Those are his own
words, from his speeches at Yale. I know MM is left wing, but facts are facts.
I don't understand how people can simply dismiss something that is factual
because it came from a left wing source. Check it at other sources if
you like. K denied any heavy drinking, but he bragged about it himself.
That's a problem and if he makes it to a hearing tomorrow, it will almost
certainly come up to attack his credibility. I'm just pointing out facts
and what his opponents are going to do. Would you rather live in denial
and pretend that anything a left wing source reports as fact, can't be true?