Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46,245

Posted
Posted

BUT BILL!!!

Sure, investigate the allegations against Bill Clinton.  He's not up for SCOTUS, but if rape allegations were never pursued, that's not right.  It is my understanding that the statute of limitations for rape in Arkansas runs a maximum of 15 years, so there is likely no chance for conviction, but Broaddrick never really got a fair shake in that whole process, so if it helps clear her name then go for it.  #notanattorney

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 17.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Yuk
Yuk

No, you guys went Republican to ethnonationalist.

Bozo_Casanova
Bozo_Casanova

When Georgetown Prep sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're

TexArcher
TexArcher

In 2016 I was a moderate.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but not quite a libertarian.  I would have considered voting for Kasich had he won the nomination. Now?  I will probably never

pyrohornIII

pyrohornIII 4,823

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I think Mojo has it right -- Garrett is probably in on this with Kavanaugh and Whelan. His name will be "cleared" once Kav is confirmed and they will hope this whole rape thing just fizzles out the way the Thomas scandal did. 

Is there no scandal that can't be what aboutted with you morons? Fine, throw Clinton up under the fucking jail. I don't give a shit. And it has absolutely no bearing on what's going on right now. 

 

4 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

In agreement with the Clinton stance here. 

 

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

BUT BILL!!!

Sure, investigate the allegations against Bill Clinton.  He's not up for SCOTUS, but if rape allegations were never pursued, that's not right.  It is my understanding that the statute of limitations for rape in Arkansas runs a maximum of 15 years, so there is likely no chance for conviction, but Broaddrick never really got a fair shake in that whole process, so if it helps clear her name then go for it.  #notanattorney

 

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

If Bill raped someone, hang him from the rafters. I couldn't care less.

Pretty sure, though, that Republicans are the people who want to punish the Clintons the least.  They'd be like a dog who caught the car they were chasing and wouldn't know what to do next.

Pretty sure these weren't the reactions EMAverage was thinking he'd get.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3,437

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

In agreement with the Clinton stance here. 

Well, except for the fact that it has nothing to do with this particular case other than the nature of the actions.

The Kavanaugh case is all about timing.  I fit were not, then I suspect the R's would have moved on to another candidate and started the process all over again.

I think the D's would agree with looking at Clinton if it meant a similar amount of time be allowed to look at Kavanaugh-which is of course, ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85,608

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Jiggy-Z said:

Well, except for the fact that it has nothing to do with this particular case other than the nature of the actions.

The Kavanaugh case is all about timing.  I fit were not, then I suspect the R's would have moved on to another candidate and started the process all over again.

I think the D's would agree with looking at Clinton if it meant a similar amount of time be allowed to look at Kavanaugh-which is of course, ridiculous.

The FBI only needed 3 fucking days to handle Anita Hill.

If Kavanaugh was 100% innocent, they could have had this open, investigated and closed by now and vote next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9,083

Posted
Posted
Just now, MaybeACoordinator said:

I think Mojo has it right -- Garrett is probably in on this with Kavanaugh and Whelan. His name will be "cleared" once Kav is confirmed and they will hope this whole rape thing just fizzles out the way the Thomas scandal did. 

Is there no scandal that can't be what aboutted with you morons? Fine, throw Clinton up under the fucking jail. I don't give a shit. And it has absolutely no bearing on what's going on right now. 

It doesn't ?  It's what jump started the huge divide and party partisanship we're embroiled in now.  The democrat party stood lockstep behind Clinton on every single one of his sexual assault charges.   If you didn't experience those yers you really can't say shit about a but Clinton comparison to any sex scandal in Washington, he's the gold standard.

The women who made charges against Clinton were all attacked in the media, and by members of his party, administration, re election committees.  His wife, who probably led the charge (the woman who'd dedicated her whole career to helping women and girls), and the groups that supported him, NOW being the one that was such a head scratcher. But hey he was one of theirs, so he had to be supported....

The Clintons have been the face of the party since he was elected, even when Mr.Obama was president they were always right there on the edge of the stage.  So while the but Clinton thing isn't relevant to the situation now,  its damn sure no different than the circling of wagons the republicans are engaged in.  History has consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4,378

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The FBI only needed 3 fucking days to handle Anita Hill.

If Kavanaugh was 100% innocent, they could have had this open, investigated and closed by now and vote next week.

Yep. GOP knows its true. Otherwise, they would have already been done with the investigation into it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9,083

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

If Bill raped someone, hang him from the rafters. I couldn't care less.

Pretty sure, though, that Republicans are the people who want to punish the Clintons the least.  They'd be like a dog who caught the car they were chasing and wouldn't know what to do next.

Love the whole post angst and support for his victims now...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3,437

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The FBI only needed 3 fucking days to handle Anita Hill.

If Kavanaugh was 100% innocent, they could have had this open, investigated and closed by now and vote next week.

Exactly my point.

However, I think in this case it would take more than 3 days, but not more than say, two weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22,754

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Love the whole post angst and support for his victims now...

I was in elementary school when Bill was impeached.  I was raised in an extremely anti-Clinton household.  I held my nose and voted for Hillary purely as a vote against Trump.  You're barking up the wrong tree, champ.

Edited by Chuckie Finster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8,349

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It doesn't ?  It's what jump started the huge divide and party partisanship we're embroiled in now.  The democrat party stood lockstep behind Clinton on every single one of his sexual assault charges.   If you didn't experience those yers you really can't say shit about a but Clinton comparison to any sex scandal in Washington, he's the gold standard.

The women who made charges against Clinton were all attacked in the media, and by members of his party, administration, re election committees.  His wife, who probably led the charge (the woman who'd dedicated her whole career to helping women and girls), and the groups that supported him, NOW being the one that was such a head scratcher. But hey he was one of theirs, so he had to be supported....

The Clintons have been the face of the party since he was elected, even when Mr.Obama was president they were always right there on the edge of the stage.  So while the but Clinton thing isn't relevant to the situation now,  its damn sure no different than the circling of wagons the republicans are engaged in.  History has consequences.

I did experience those years as an adult and as I recall Anita Hill came before any of Clinton's bimbo eruptions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18,951

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It doesn't ?  It's what jump started the huge divide and party partisanship we're embroiled in now.  The democrat party stood lockstep behind Clinton on every single one of his sexual assault charges.   If you didn't experience those yers you really can't say shit about a but Clinton comparison to any sex scandal in Washington, he's the gold standard.

The women who made charges against Clinton were all attacked in the media, and by members of his party, administration, re election committees.  His wife, who probably led the charge (the woman who'd dedicated her whole career to helping women and girls), and the groups that supported him, NOW being the one that was such a head scratcher. But hey he was one of theirs, so he had to be supported....

The Clintons have been the face of the party since he was elected, even when Mr.Obama was president they were always right there on the edge of the stage.  So while the but Clinton thing isn't relevant to the situation now,  its damn sure no different than the circling of wagons the republicans are engaged in.  History has consequences.

All of the charges against Clinton were investigated.

But you already knew that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9,083

Posted
Posted
Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

I was 11 years old when Bill was impeached.  I was raised in an extremely anti-Clinton household.  I held my nose and voted for Hillary purely as a vote against Trump.  You're barking up the wrong tree, champ.

And I, along wIth lots of other people who didn't want to ever see another Clinton in the WH did the same thing.  

What's your point ?  Of course there were millions who didn't like Clinton. The point is his own party supported him lockstep for every single incident that came up.  Which is what's happening now with Kavvanaugh with less factual and or timely evidence. Which does not mean I don't think she's being truthful in her allegations, and think an investigation should be conducted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,448

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

Fuuuuuuck me. Trump is about to step in it big time. 

Ahh, yes, the GOP is  going strong with the absolutely false premise that "if a woman didn't report a rape right when it happened, then it didn't happen."  Fantastic.  Particularly in light of the fact that there are literally hundreds of thousands of cases of sexual assault  that were not reported or dealt with until decades later.  Including some cases that  have been in the headlines in recent months.

Solid.  Way to cement the party's position with women.

26 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I think Mojo has it right -- Garrett is probably in on this with Kavanaugh and Whelan. His name will be "cleared" once Kav is confirmed and they will hope this whole rape thing just fizzles out the way the Thomas scandal did. 

Is there no scandal that can't be what aboutted with you morons? Fine, throw Clinton up under the fucking jail. I don't give a shit. And it has absolutely no bearing on what's going on right now. 

 

21 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

If Bill raped someone, hang him from the rafters. I couldn't care less.

Pretty sure, though, that Republicans are the people who want to punish the Clintons the least.  They'd be like a dog who caught the car they were chasing and wouldn't know what to do next.

Yep.  Put me in the "sure, go ahead" camp.  I was never a Bill fan, the allegations of assault against him troubled me greatly, and I want ALL credible allegations -- by anyone, against  anyone -- properly investigated.  Always.  Forever.  And I always have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4,378

Posted
Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

And you are disingenuous. You know that all of the rape allegations against Clinton have been investigated but you find it convenient to pretend otherwise.

But Hillary is so played.

The Clintons have probably been investigated more than any other people in history. I am actually somewhat shocked that the GOP never found anything that could stick. 

Investigate Juanita's alleged rape again all you want. Convict Bill if it happened and convict Hillary if she obstructed justice. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MixtyMotions

MixtyMotions 102

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

All of the charges against Clinton were investigated.

But you already knew that.

We need to have a hearing on it.  Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick need to have an opportunity to have their say.  We need a four day extravaganza and Hillary needs to testify under oath about what she did to try to silence these women.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyrohornIII

pyrohornIII 4,823

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

Well, except for the fact that it has nothing to do with this particular case other than the nature of the actions.

The Kavanaugh case is all about timing.  I fit were not, then I suspect the R's would have moved on to another candidate and started the process all over again.

I think the D's would agree with looking at Clinton if it meant a similar amount of time be allowed to look at Kavanaugh-which is of course, ridiculous.

My take is that if Clinton has/had credible accusations brought against him, then they should be investigated thoroughly, same as BK.  Time spent on said investigations will vary dependent on each case. 

9 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It doesn't ?  It's what jump started the huge divide and party partisanship we're embroiled in now.  The democrat party stood lockstep behind Clinton on every single one of his sexual assault charges.   If you didn't experience those yers you really can't say shit about a but Clinton comparison to any sex scandal in Washington, he's the gold standard.

The women who made charges against Clinton were all attacked in the media, and by members of his party, administration, re election committees.  His wife, who probably led the charge (the woman who'd dedicated her whole career to helping women and girls), and the groups that supported him, NOW being the one that was such a head scratcher. But hey he was one of theirs, so he had to be supported....

The Clintons have been the face of the party since he was elected, even when Mr.Obama was president they were always right there on the edge of the stage.  So while the but Clinton thing isn't relevant to the situation now,  its damn sure no different than the circling of wagons the republicans are engaged in.  History has consequences.

I don't doubt that Dems rallied around Clinton at the time.  I was a paid subscriber to the Conservative Chronicle and daily listener of Limbaugh during all that.  It was at the forefront of the sexual abuse outtings.  Up until then we had had the gossip about Marilyn Monroe and the Kenedy bros, Gary Hart and a few other cases that were put forward as infidelity trysts or mistresses.  The concept of someone forcing a woman was pretty foreign to a lot of the public.  Surely it was going on, but it wasn't talked about as openly as now.

I won't win this argument with some of you, but it seems we should have learned from Clinton and those accusations.  But the GOP apparently hasn't.  They are not taking Dr. Ford's claim seriously, which you would think they would considering what we supposedly learned through the Clinton years.  I think you are trying to make the point that if the shoe were on the other foot, if the SCOTUS nominee were liberal, the Dems would be reacting the exact same way as the Rs are now.   You base this on the continued support of HRC, who you feel was an enabler of her husband in his assault cases.   I can see that argument. 

But first I don't think the Dems would try to float someone as sketchy as BK, and secondly, if they did, I think a fair amount of us would not support that nominee more than we support BK.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8,349

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, pyrohornIII said:

My take is that if Clinton has/had credible accusations brought against him, then they should be investigated thoroughly, same as BK.  Time spent on said investigations will vary dependent on each case. 

I don't doubt that Dems rallied around Clinton at the time.  I was a paid subscriber to the Conservative Chronicle and daily listener of Limbaugh during all that.  It was at the forefront of the sexual abuse outtings.  Up until then we had had the gossip about Marilyn Monroe and the Kenedy bros, Gary Hart and a few other cases that were put forward as infidelity trysts or mistresses.  The concept of someone forcing a woman was pretty foreign to a lot of the public.  Surely it was going on, but it wasn't talked about as openly as now.

I won't win this argument with some of you, but it seems we should have learned from Clinton and those accusations.  But the GOP apparently hasn't.  They are not taking Dr. Ford's claim seriously, which you would think they would considering what we supposedly learned through the Clinton years.  I think you are trying to make the point that if the shoe were on the other foot, if the SCOTUS nominee were liberal, the Dems would be reacting the exact same way as the Rs are now.   You base this on the continued support of HRC, who you feel was an enabler of her husband in his assault cases.   I can see that argument. 

But first I don't think the Dems would try to float someone as sketchy as BK, and secondly, if they did, I think a fair amount of us would not support that nominee more than we support BK.

Franken negates the argument that Dems would rally around a BK-like nominee. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4,378

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

And shit, don't even get me started on Jefferson. 

He wasnt a Dem. He was a Democratic-Republican. In some ways, that party splintered to form both modern parties. If he raped anyone, that was his Dem half, of course. The same half that did all the other bad stuff like owning slaves. His Rep half only did good and kind acts. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16,992

Posted
Posted
Yep.  Put me in the "sure, go ahead" camp.  I was never a Bill fan, the allegations of assault against him troubled me greatly, and I want ALL credible allegations -- by anyone, against  anyone -- properly investigated.  Always.  Forever.  And I always have.

I love Women!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,448

Posted
Posted

I love Women!

Well...I do.

But as for this subject, I feel the same way about male accusers (see Catholic Church and Sandusky scandals). Allegations need to be treated seriously and investigated thoroughly, for the sake of ALL involved (accuser AND accused). But I freely admit to having an overdeveloped sense of justice.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...