Official Judge Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court

[Vlad_]

Yeah.... drinking. That's what the investigation was about.

No, it was about one cunt who could not remember when and where and how she got there or back home, using her fake mouse voice, sticking to the script her lawyers wrote for her, in a story that makes no sense, never going off script to not say something self incriminating.

A second cunt who needed to call dozens of her classmates to ask if it was really Kavanaugh who flashed his dick at a party.

A third cunt, the Creepy Porn Lawyer's client, who kept going back to drug gang rape parties, because at parties attended by 15-25 year old, it's obviously the 15 year olds who do the raping. Then changing her sworn testimony statements into "well Kavanaugh was at those parties, and he was seen around the punch bowl"...

All very serious stuff indeed.

[bigjavi973]

That's exactly what this implies. If she was lying, he'd sue.

oooooooooooo caught with the hand in the cookie jar

[The Big Dunn]

Absolutely not. Like I said again, you recklessly speak like your opinions are facts. You almost never see any blow back in sexual or sexual harassment cases. Good luck finding a lawyer or a court that will proceed forward.

Like I said before they won't because they don't want to real victims not to report because of fear of retaliation

It's a factual observation that you can't refute so you have to find some way to attack it by saying its me passing off my opinion as fact. Everything I posted was a fact and I neither gave an opinion on guilt or innocence or implied Kavanuagh was guilty.

This isn't a sexual harassment case, it was a Senate confirmation hearing.

[1bad65]

oooooooooooo caught with the hand in the cookie jar

One of the downsides of being a rabid superfan.

[The Big Dunn]

That's exactly what this implies. If she was lying, he'd sue.

No it doesn't imply anything. The only people who think it does are the idiot Trump supporters.

If I say "It's cloudy outside" that doesn't imply I think it's going to rain.

At this point you are desperate to make something out of nothing.

[GGG Gloveking]

No it doesn't imply anything. The only people who think it does are the idiot Trump supporters.

If I say "It's cloudy outside" that doesn't imply I think it's going to rain.

At this point you are desperate to make something out of nothing.

It would if you add the statement if it's cloudy, it's going to rain. That's basically what you did to begin with. Let's look at what you said.

-If there was evidence of her lying, he'd sue for libel.

-He didn't sue for libel.

The reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that since he didn't sue for libel, she isn't lying, because of she was, he'd sue.

[The Big Dunn]

Now that Kavanuagh has been confirmed rational minds can prevail. There is no way you honestly think she or the other women made this stuff up.

If there was any evidence that these women lied about a sitting federal judge he'd sue them for libel and they'd be prosecuted for perjury. The powers that be wouldn't just let it "fade into bolivian", to quote Tyson.

Neither has happened yet and I doubt either happens as the whole sordid thing gets put behind us.

We have 2 truths:

1. Kavanuagh got confirmed as an SC justice
2. None of the accusers have been sued for libel by a man that said these accusations were lies that destroyed his family and his good name.

It would if you add the statement if it's cloudy, it's going to rain. That's basically what you did to begin with. Let's look at what you said.

-If there was evidence of her lying, he'd sue for libel.

-He didn't sue for libel.

The reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that since he didn't sue for libel, she isn't lying, because of she was, he'd sue.

Here is what I posted above. It clearly states my opinion that 2 things would happen if there was any evidence the women lied.

In no way does the post above imply guilt.

Once again in a desperate attempt to make something out of nothing, you purposely misinterpreted a quote after parsing it.

[GGG Gloveking]

Here is what I posted above. It clearly states my opinion that 2 things would happen if there was any evidence the women lied.

In no way does the post above imply guilt.

Once again in a desperate attempt to make something out of nothing, you purposely misinterpreted a quote after parsing it.

Dunn, seriously, we're spinning wheels here. Why don't you just explain what you were trying to imply, or what point you were trying to make, by making these statements?

You give an if-then statement that I thought you were representing as fact, especially considering you reiterate the point as a "truth". You have to understand that logically, if the "if" part is untrue, then the "then" part is untrue.

If A is true, B must happen.

B did not happen.

A is not true.

[The Big Dunn]

Dunn, seriously, we're spinning wheels here. Why don't you just explain what you were trying to imply, or what point you were trying to make, by making these statements?

You give an if-then statement that I thought you were representing as fact, especially considering you reiterate the point as a "truth". You have to understand that logically, if the "if" part is untrue, then the "then" part is untrue.

If A is true, B must happen.

B did not happen.

A is not true.

I did explain. Several times. It was an observation based on how I would react if I were him. I can't understand why he wouldn't sue. No more, no less.

Once again you either parse the post or purposely interpret it negatively then ask me about it. I can only answer regarding what I posted.

[GGG Gloveking]

I did explain. Several times. It was an observation based on how I would react if I were him. I can't understand why he wouldn't sue. No more, no less.

Once again you either parse the post or purposely interpret it negatively then ask me about it. I can only answer regarding what I posted.

What conclusion do you draw from your observation, or what conclusion do you expect the reader to draw from your observation?