Kansas Crimson

Putting IMZ down as "OK with sexual assault."

Good to know.

As a female, I think she is pulling it out of her ass. 36 years ago, can't remember when or where, but remembers it was him. She need to put her vagina hat back on and stop giving females a bad name.

Judy_Jayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:26 pm As a female, I think she is pulling it out of her ass. 36 years ago, can't remember when or where, but remembers it was him. She need to put her vagina hat back on and stop giving females a bad name.

JFC

chiknbut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:55 pm Putting IMZ down as "OK with sexual assault."

Good to know.

surprised?

Judy_Jayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:26 pm As a female, I think she is pulling it out of her ass. 36 years ago, can't remember when or where, but remembers it was him. She need to put her vagina hat back on and stop giving females a bad name.

Finally, a voice of reason. You have to admit that it is interesting that she didn’t remember any of this when he was vetted for his previous judgeship, nor did she think it was worth revealing when she “started to remember” it six years ago. I hope they slap her with perjury charges if she does waste time testifying. SMH.

How dare that bitch?
Judy, get a sex change.

So, if a woman says one thing happened and a male says differently, she should automatically be charged with perjury? Wow!

Seems to me she's the only one calling for an investigation.

She won't be charged with perjury unless he can prove he wasn't there...which will be impossible because she doesn't even know when it happened. And the technology that would be useful that is available today wasn't around then. So it's basically a case that can't truly be investigated very effectively because it's 2 people who say different things... maybe the other guy will admit it was them?

Would he be charged as a jevunville due to his age at the time of the alleged incident? How does that even work?

Obviously, I didn't attend a Catholic boys prep school, but was it normal to talk about a "Devil's Triangle" in one's high school yearbook from those schools?

seahawk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:49 am So, if a woman says one thing happened and a male says differently, she should automatically be charged with perjury? Wow!

When she lies to obstruct a Senate hearing, absolutely.

What makes you think that she is lying?

Some one should investigate. Maybe she is lying. Maybe she isn't.

But whatever we do, don't investigate.

Anyone who isn't totally biased based on party affiliation probably thinks they should "investigate" this....as a relatively neutral person I would only hope the "investigation" is completed in a timely manner and that this isn't done as a political stunt to delay in the hopes nothing can happen until the dems likely take back the house and Senate.

But let's be real, what can be investigated at this point other than asking each person what happened? Whether he did it or not, I'm not sure how they can prove he did "it" (whatever she claims "it" is)... especially because she doesn't remember details?...I suppose she could identify the other guy and then he could admit it happened? Does she even remember the other guy?

What a mess. If he did "it" I hope they can prove it somehow or that he will just admit to it.

Geezer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:22 am What makes you think that she is lying?

She's not.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:34 am

Geezer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:22 am What makes you think that she is lying?

She's not.

I hope you're serious. I don't think she's lying either.

Geezer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:22 am What makes you think that she is lying?

1.) The fact that she waited 36 years to bring it up publicly, much less share with close friends or family.
2.) The fact that she had the same opportunity to do this six years ago and didn't feel sufficiently traumatized or outraged to do it then.
3.) The fact that memory is extremely unreliable and open to suggestion, especially as decades pass.
4.) The fact that Democrats' default mode is lying and slander, and they are highly motivated to thwart Kavanaugh's nomination on ideological grounds.

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:08 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:34 am

Geezer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:22 am What makes you think that she is lying?

She's not.

I hope you're serious. I don't think she's lying either.

Even if he did, do you seriously think that something a 54 year-old man did when he was an 18 year-old kid really has any bearing on his fitness to be a Supreme Court justice today? If so, I assume you are also just as hopeful that Juanita Broaddrick's actual rape allegations against Slick Willie and those against Keith Ellison will also be thoroughly investigated so that justice can be served.

So we can put you down as being okay with all of the priestly molestations from 35 years ago?