|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
This whole "My friend Mark's book was fictional, it's because he's an addict" is really making Brett look like a shitty person and an even worse friend to Mark.
|
"Do you want Judge to be here testifying ?"
"blablablabla"
"Are you Bart O'Kavanaugh in his book ?"
"blablabla"
"ARE YOU ?"
"You'd have to ask him !"
.......................... This is awful.
|
Brett Kavanaugh: "I was number one in high school... I was captain of the basketball team"... holy crap he's going full-on Trump. Because successful high school students can't be sexual abusers?
|
he's really combative with leahy.
|
On September 28 2018 05:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Brett Kavanaugh: "I was number one in high school... I was captain of the basketball team"... holy crap he's going full-on Trump. Because successful high school students can't be sexual abusers?
He's too drunk to remember any movie from the 80s.
|
And then Leahy hits with the yearbook at the best timing :-D
And he did not answer the questions...
|
This is a train wreck. He is losing it. This has got to be the most by the book example of "I WAS AWESOME, I SHOULD BE JUDGED FOR ONLY THE GOOD I DID" nonsense.
|
Brett Kavanaugh just strawmanned a triple sexual assault allegation as "Should a Supreme Court nomination really just be based off an old yearbook page?" Bury this mother fucker.
|
Maybe the reason they limited it to 5min/person is because they knew Kav was going to be a trainwreck if he couldn't filibuster to avoid everything.
|
On September 28 2018 05:33 ticklishmusic wrote:
he's really combative with leahy.
Wait until Harris and Co. start asking questions. It's going to get wild.
Also, his yearbook defense doesn't pass the sniff test imo. Would be nice to talk to the people who actually made the yearbook, no?
|
"Do you really want to demean this hearing by forcing me to make fun of that disgusting addict and friend I outed?"
|
What a fucking shitshow coming out of Kavanaugh, like others have said, even if it's totally proved that he's 100% innocent of the allegations, his temperament gives me more than enough reason to not support him
|
On September 28 2018 05:30 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 05:25 Nouar wrote:On September 28 2018 05:21 nojok wrote:On September 28 2018 05:15 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2018 05:11 nojok wrote:On September 28 2018 05:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:On September 28 2018 04:55 nojok wrote:
Did not expect so many mobs on liquid who already made their opinion without any proof.
Fact is there is no proof and the story has appeared out of the blue before Kavanaugh could get an important position. Frightening for your democracy, really. Have you been sexually assaulted? Because as a person who has, it's not very easy to provide proof you were assaulted in a bathroom, 22 years ago. Wth is this question? You just can't provide proof and it's terribly unfair but it mostly means you can't prosecute someone like that. If you just need the lack of proof in either way to accuse someone, it can go terribly wrong. are you under the impression this is a criminal investigation? It's almost like a trial without investigation which is what I find very disturbing. The republican and Kavanaugh side is the one that doesn't want an investigation because it would delay the nomination after the midterms. Thus, you get that result. On September 28 2018 05:21 On_Slaught wrote:
Am I correct that he never said he wanted an actual investigation? He seems to have parsed his words very carefully. He said he wanted the "hearing" immediately and would do whatever the committee wanted. Did I miss him straight up saying this should be investigated fully? You are correct, I listened very carefully to that part :-) There it is again. He refuses to say they should look into this further by questioning Judge. This is clearly his strategy to not ask for more investigation of this.
Has anyone asked him directly if he wants the accusations to be investigated yet?
|
On September 28 2018 05:37 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 05:30 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 05:25 Nouar wrote:On September 28 2018 05:21 nojok wrote:On September 28 2018 05:15 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2018 05:11 nojok wrote:On September 28 2018 05:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:On September 28 2018 04:55 nojok wrote:
Did not expect so many mobs on liquid who already made their opinion without any proof.
Fact is there is no proof and the story has appeared out of the blue before Kavanaugh could get an important position. Frightening for your democracy, really. Have you been sexually assaulted? Because as a person who has, it's not very easy to provide proof you were assaulted in a bathroom, 22 years ago. Wth is this question? You just can't provide proof and it's terribly unfair but it mostly means you can't prosecute someone like that. If you just need the lack of proof in either way to accuse someone, it can go terribly wrong. are you under the impression this is a criminal investigation? It's almost like a trial without investigation which is what I find very disturbing. The republican and Kavanaugh side is the one that doesn't want an investigation because it would delay the nomination after the midterms. Thus, you get that result. On September 28 2018 05:21 On_Slaught wrote:
Am I correct that he never said he wanted an actual investigation? He seems to have parsed his words very carefully. He said he wanted the "hearing" immediately and would do whatever the committee wanted. Did I miss him straight up saying this should be investigated fully? You are correct, I listened very carefully to that part :-) There it is again. He refuses to say they should look into this further by questioning Judge. This is clearly his strategy to not ask for more investigation of this. Has anyone asked him directly if he wants the accusations to be investigated yet?
Multiple times. Every time he has dodged or strawmanned.
Edit: apparently he said it in his opening, but he has dodged it when asked by the Dems. Lets see how he answers Durbin.
|
Here it is, a direct question on it (Edit: well, it's dragging on now and providing dodging space)
|
|
|
On September 28 2018 05:38 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 05:37 Nebuchad wrote:On September 28 2018 05:30 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 05:25 Nouar wrote:On September 28 2018 05:21 nojok wrote:On September 28 2018 05:15 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2018 05:11 nojok wrote:On September 28 2018 05:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:On September 28 2018 04:55 nojok wrote:
Did not expect so many mobs on liquid who already made their opinion without any proof.
Fact is there is no proof and the story has appeared out of the blue before Kavanaugh could get an important position. Frightening for your democracy, really. Have you been sexually assaulted? Because as a person who has, it's not very easy to provide proof you were assaulted in a bathroom, 22 years ago. Wth is this question? You just can't provide proof and it's terribly unfair but it mostly means you can't prosecute someone like that. If you just need the lack of proof in either way to accuse someone, it can go terribly wrong. are you under the impression this is a criminal investigation? It's almost like a trial without investigation which is what I find very disturbing. The republican and Kavanaugh side is the one that doesn't want an investigation because it would delay the nomination after the midterms. Thus, you get that result. On September 28 2018 05:21 On_Slaught wrote:
Am I correct that he never said he wanted an actual investigation? He seems to have parsed his words very carefully. He said he wanted the "hearing" immediately and would do whatever the committee wanted. Did I miss him straight up saying this should be investigated fully? You are correct, I listened very carefully to that part :-) There it is again. He refuses to say they should look into this further by questioning Judge. This is clearly his strategy to not ask for more investigation of this. Has anyone asked him directly if he wants the accusations to be investigated yet? Multiple times. Every time he has dodged or strawmanned. Edit: apparently he said it in his opening, but he has dodged it when asked by the Dems. Lets see how he answers Durbin.
Well he won't, since Grassley is not happy :-)
|
For fucks sake he WILL NOT SAY IT.
|
Dick Durbin tells Brett Kavanaugh to put his money where his mouth is, and challenges BK to promote a proper FBI investigation to clear his name. Chairman Grassley interferes hardcore, yelling at the suggestion, insisting that BK is going to be voted on as a nominee no matter what. Then DD and BK have a back-and-forth "You can't handle the truth!" - level scene. This is so fucked up by Grassley and BK.
|
On September 28 2018 05:43 On_Slaught wrote:
For fucks sake he WILL NOT SAY IT.
Looks like this is a red line for him (and republicans), democrats are hitting where it hurts...
"I would welcome anything" but definitely not say the words " 'I' would like an investigation"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
