Leaderboard

The third accuser, Swetncik said that Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge “gang raped” girls in a side room or bedroom by a “train” of numerous boys. During an NBC interview she admitted she never actually saw anybody get raped but just assumed...... It seems to me that the left wants to instigate Napoleonic Law where you have to prove your innocence rather than the courts proving you guilty… the destruction of the presumption of innocence is an attack on civilized society. It is not part of our society to allow lynch mobs to demand a man’s career be ruined by a vague accusation with no substantiating evidence .

I'm rooting for innocent until proven guilty, not, guilty by accusation.

Show me where he responded with falsehood! I'm not taking your word for it......cite your source! As far as I know, no one had established that Kavanaugh had lied so far. HOWEVER......Christitine Blasey Ford had lied 3 times! Yes! 3 times! Btw.....when I said she lied 3 times - I'm not referring to the three people she claimed to have been at that party, who turned out that they were not there at all. yep. Those were three lies....but those aren't the 3 lies I'm talking about. THE THREE LIES OF CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/the_three_lies_of_christine_blasey_ford.html Can you add? Boy......we're uncovering a lot of lies, huh? Anyway..... She said she'd had one beer. That may be so......because she forgot all about the other 10 she had!

You can give your opinion, and even be outraged by what I posted.......but it still doesn't change the fact that you have problems with comprehension! If Ford has serious problems with her recollection - you have serious problems understanding what you read. read my posts again.

1) Is this a political hit-job or a legitimate issue? 2) Rank the hypocrisy level of the left-wing media, the Democrats and the Hollywood elites on a scale from 1-100. (CNN and the Dems didn’t care about Clinton’s rapes or sexual harassment, although the allegations were more specific, had more credible evidence, and in some cases resulted in civil settlements. What’s more is that the Dems ruthlessly slandered Bill’s accusers but now they’re saying that “all victims need to be believed”. The Hollywood elites pretend to care about this victim, but they gave Roman Polanski an Oscar and a huge round of applause after he fled the country to escape justice after he raped a child that was incapacitated from the quaaloods that Polanski gave them). 3) Is it possible for someone to be a victim of a “harrowing event” like an attempted rape, and yet the victim and witnesses can not remember specific things like the time, location and date? 4) Is it totally bogus that they’re demanding that Ford won’t testify until the FBI investigates the story, despite the fact that rape cases by civilians are out of their jurisdiction, and the statute of limitations has expired? They’re also trying to get the defendant to testify first, which goes against a defendant’s right to a proper chance for their own defence....

Not directly but it can rule on whether Congress properly followed the rules of impeachment. Which as they are the court of final appeal, pretty much amounts to the same thing.

Supreme Court justices don’t vote on impeachment. Maybe some of you shouldn’t be commenting on processes you know literally nothing about. Kavanaugh is a Bush appointee to the federal courts. He is a standard/traditional conservative/Republican type judge. He has almost nothing to do with Trump world. Stop the nonsense already. This is another case of fake news.

Yup, you get what you deserve and Americans deserve a frat boy drunk and possible sexual assaulter on their Supreme Court. Put him in while the standards are still low.

Actually you have no evidence at all that she's lying. You're just desperate and grasping at straws to save face because you know she has more courage and character than Kavanaugh or Trump or you could ever have.

Unless it's some editorial writer from 30 years ago talking about something a colleague told him about Trudeau being vaguely inappropriate one time. Then your torches are out. Lol But no matter what, there are no contortions required to find many instances where Kavanaugh lied under oath. He was asked questions and he responded with falsehoods. Open and shut case to all reasonable observers.

You are so lasered in on that one article you provided that proposed that he lied. You know - the one where the author twists himself in knots trying to twist Kavanaugh's words - that you don't see the irony of your claims. Ford has provided ZERO facts that can be verified - NOTHING other than a story that everyone denies ever happening. It's impossible to prove beyond a doubt that she is lying - because she provides no facts. Kavanaugh on the other hand, has provided reams of statements in his attempt to disprove an uncorroborated story. Lost in all this is the overt bias (Trump hating) that continues to manifest itself. It's not about being "pro-Ford" or "pro-Kavanaugh". If Ford's story had a basis in reality - just a few credible details and one credible corroborating account would probably swing it - Kavanuagh's appointment would and should be in serious jeopardy. But there is nothing - absolutely nothing. Yet even here in Canada for heaven's sake, there are still people armed with torches and pitchforks. Incredible.

Don't forget too that she's an experienced psychologist - and by the looks of the achievements they've read out at the hearing, she has an amazing background in that field. As a psychologist, she can easily emulate a rape or assault victim. She'd know the right buttons to push to seem credible. I suspect she was handpicked for the "job," for that very reason.

Canada and Mexico are just collateral damage in the ultimate U.S. trade war with China. The U.S. team has bigger fish to fry than worrying about dairy and poultry's chickenfeed sales in Canada. Transhipments, auto parts content, and IP theft are also important to Team Trump as they try to firewall against China with more trade deals going forward (e.g. South Korea, Japan). China is already feeling the burn, with slowing export growth. Getting NAFTA 2.0 out of the way will just embolden Trump and his use of tariffs, as Canada and Mexico have begrudgingly made deals under such pressure. Trudeau and Freeland can say whatever they want to convince Canadians that they are heroes...the U.S. doesn't care about their Sunny Ways spin rhetoric for domestic consumption.

In many respects, this is a good deal for Canada. Two beefs I have with it: 1. The patent-protection period is too long. 2. It prevents Canada from negotiating a trade deal with a 'non-market' country. The fact that this has forced Canada to lower barriers in key areas will benefit Canada in the long run. As for the new protections that it allows the US, those will actually hurt the US in the long run. I know it might seem counter-intuitive since opening markets does impose growing pains, but this will force Canadian businesses to become more efficient while allowing protected US ones to stagnate. Without irony, I can say too bad Trump didn't twist our arms even more. Canada should consider another silver lining in this that Trump might have overlooked... to Canada's advantage. The new deal prevents Canada from 'negotiating' trade deals with 'non-market' economies without first consulting with the US and Mexico on the matter. Unilateral free trade does not require 'negotiation.' Yes it's true that unilateral free trade can take Canada only so far in that Canada could unilaterally lower tariffs and other intentional barriers, but it would still need to negotiate most non-tariff and non-quota barriers such as phyto-sanitary, packaging-and-labeling, and other standards. The restriction on Canada's freedom to 'negotiate' with other countries without the US' consent still does not prevent Canada from engaging in unilateral free trade for what it's worth even if that must limit itself only to dropping tariffs and quotas. That would still be a start.

She is an operative, and I wont bend over backwards to say it. She was gonna save the country, save Roe V Wade and be a hero - and make millions in the process. I knew that when I heard that she erased her social media pages.

Finally - a coherent presentation of facts - not emotion, not partisanship, not bias, not vengeance - just facts.....and her summary says it all: In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

I think you do give a damn.....sorry if Putin and Trump matter a lot more than your putz prime minister, who even managed to bungle NAFTA 2.0.

I heard that there was even some spanking involved. He's one sick puppy.

I think Canada is probably one of our best--if not the best--friend we have. Canada is in Afghanistan with the NATO forces, they're a member of NATO and they do good deeds for America. They stand by us. There's some cultural differences and some banter---FRIENDLY banter I mean--between Canadians and Americans, none of it hostile, all of it in good fun. I'd say we (the US) make fun of them more than they make fun of us. (E.g., the song "Blame Canada" in the South Park movie.) After all, you wouldn't want to destroy Canada, would you? Hell No. I wouldn't either. I look forward to visiting one day and meeting Canadians in real life. Terminate this thread before you embarrass the rest of us, please!

Do not allow these devices in your home. They are always on and always listening. They pose a huge security and privacy risk. Even the smart TVs that have mic's build in pose the same risk. 'The Internet of Things' needs to be slowed down and every risk needs to be considered. It also puts the control of things out of your hands, and into tech that is flawed and into 3rd party entities that are subject to hacking attempts. Your home actually becomes LESS safe with these devices in your home. IF you can access it remotely,y so can someone else.

Nonsense...no Trump....no NAFTA 2.0....it is as simple as that. Mexico figured it out...Canada was much slower.

What the fxxx does that mean?

The above is taken out of the article, and while it does not say with certainty that there are no, NON Muslims living there..... The article does suggest that very thing...Mr Ahmed is managing the selling the homes....and they are marketed exclusively to the Ahmadiyya community....."unless I misunderstood exclusively".....the homes do offer design changes that have their religion in mind....