Woman who claimed Justice Kavanaugh raped her now admits they’ve never even met.

Of course you do, for you’re the brightest bulb among PF Lberals. Really

 

I believe you, really I do. Does that help??

Yippa.

 

Not at all Sharpie. I said he lied about the level and regularity of his pewky, obnoxious drunkeness. How does my disliking a liar being put on SCOTUS make me a lefty or conservative? I don't know Booker, Ellison or Menendez, but I would condemn anyone guilty of forcing himself on women, roughing up women, having underage sex with any person (prostitute or not,) being a seriel adulterer, a puzzy grabber or someone who pays hush money.

 

He didn't say all women were liars, we are talking about these particular women who were.

 

What are you talking about SHE ORDERED HIM TO PROSECUTE THE CASE. And what "fruit of the poisoned tree"? What evidence was obtained illegally? And NO a federal prosecutor and the FBI are NOT to ignore prima facie evidence of multiple felonies. He did as he should and turned it over to the FBI which investigates such matters they confirmed the evidence and he gave it to RENO.

Go get your facts straight.

 

No you tell me what YOU are claiming in my statements of fact are revisionist history and be specific. You guys like to jump in with your bogus claims and then refuse to back them up. Money where mouth is time. which statements of fact?

 

We can only hope.

 

Republicans are the only ones that have even mentioned lying under oath when it relates to the false allegations launched against Kavanaugh. Not a peep from Waters, Feinstein, Pelosi, Warren, Harris or any of those other unhinged nut cases.

 

^^^Now the weak creation of the straw....man reach in action^^^, predictable and easily so.

 

Judge Wright did not rule that. She ruled the Lewinsky testimony was not necessary because Jones had other women's statements that he in fact use his power over women to gain sexual favor. The reason she did so was at the behest of guess who Ken Starr. He had gone to her to inform her of the felonies committed in her court and asked her to end the Jones matter entirely as he pursued the criminal charges. She granted him excluding the Lewinsky matter and only charged Clinton with civil contempt so as not to create a double jeopardy situation. She never ruled any of the testimony was inadmissible.

 

I hope you are taking a knee as well.

Yippa.

 

YOU made an accusation against ME, now when cornered about it you try to run, predictable and oh so routine. Money where mouth is specifically what YOU claim is revisionist history our admit you were pulling it out your arse.

 

Damn me, i cut and pasted from the Washington Post. I believe it was a direct report of judge Starr.

 

He won't take your advice. I showed him actual proof from Starr and he denies it.

 

I pointed out that you conflated details to spin revisionist history and were called out on it by myself and @Giftedone.......now you are backpedaling and looking to side step your own behaviour. Here is the @Giftedone setting you straight after you conflated details:

You simply conflated the perjury charges as a common thread in the Clinton impeachment......nice try but easily turfed by facts.

 

Don't you think that there first ought to be proof of what you accused him of doing?

 

You quoted the others, When you accuse Bluesguy, why did you refuse to quote him?

 

Yeah I noted. Some tried to claim she ruled the Lewinsky testimony was immaterial therefore it could not be perjury but again that is not what she ruled. She wanted to satisfy her court for the perjury and other felonies but did not want to interfere with the criminal investigation and prosecution.

 

There is proof....from his own Year Book, that note he wrote to his mates about their proposed week on the grog the one about 'warn the neighbours', and from Bart O'Kavanaugh's best mate (concerning Bart passing out in the back seat of the car and not even being able to open the car door.) As to his lie about the drinking age in his final year at High Schook, that is historic public legislative record.

 

What and be specific, what statement of fact did I make that was revisionist. Quote it. I totally refuted Gifts fallacious statements refute what I said. I'M pushing it forward and have not backpedaled on a single so stop talking out for arse. He claimed the Lewinsky matter was a witch hunt, that is blatantly FALSE as I have stated.

 

It has been years since I read her actual ruling. It seems you keep up on it. But she laid the leather to Bill Clinton.

 

That is not proof. Proof is a consistent pattern of getting smashed and witnesses bear testimony to a court of law that itself decides on the facts. A yearbook can't testify. While evidence, it lacks the quality to be proof. I could say in my yearbook I laid every beautiful girl and it does not prove I told the truth.

 

So he says he drank a lot in high school someone else said he drank a lot +1 and that is your perjury? That's it? And no he did not lie about the drinking age when he was in high school, it was raised to 18 but some of the seniors, of which he was not one at the time and did not claim to be, were grandfathered in and they continued to be able to buy the beer for the parties. Again this is the material issue at hand you believe amounts to perjury and should disqualify him. Why was his drinking in high school ever an issue AT ALL?

 

Looking for a straw...man and help from the Bluesguy, this post is A typical of someone who's can't stand alone. Read the thread before seeking HELP?