It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Perfect Example Of The Mindset Of Liberals: 'I'm just glad we ruined XXXXXXX's life'

page: 8
55
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Why would the POTUS need public support for his nominee? Unless Trump nominated a very liberal judge I would submit those who voted for him would care less who he nominated? Trump has the senate how were the votes in doubt?


People did care though. Conservatives were already talking about Kavanaugh's dirty work on the Foster investigation when his name was floated for being on Trump's short list.

Here's an example at American Thinker: There is something 'fishy' about one of Trump's potential Supreme Court nominees

And, again, the need for public support was not about Kavanaugh getting confirmed. That was never in doubt. It is Trump who needed the public to support Kavanaugh.


originally posted by: shooterbrody
I hope you do not think I have discarded your suspicion about trump and the clintons. I just don't think hillary would have layed down so trump could win.


Why not? Hillary laid down so Obama could win. You may not be aware of that if you were not invested in the 2008 Democratic primary though.

The fact is, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee took votes cast FOR Hillary, in the 2008 Michigan primary, and simply gifted them to Obama. She reserved the right to take the fight to the convention, but she just laid down instead.

Her decision to keep her name on the Michigan ballot -- while Obama voluntarily removed his -- set the stage for the gifting of her votes to him.

Everyone claimed that Hillary and Obama hated each other...that was the 'narrative.' But the record shows nothing could be further from the truth.

I think Hillary has too much baggage to ever run to win. She owes too many favors and there's too much to blackmail her with. She runs to lose and and it may be because she has no choice. In fact, I thought Hillary was running to give Bernie the nomination right up until the 2016 DNC Convention vote. At that time, I could not imagine that Trump might be the chosen one (although I've suspected Trump was controlled opposition since 2011).

Reflecting back, you have to wonder why on earth the DNC ever wanted Hillary to be their nominee when they knew the FBI investigation into her email server was going to dominate the headlines for at least a year and they *supposedly* did not know how it would conclude. There was so much at stake. Why run a crippled horse if they wanted to win?


***

Watch this:


Hillary disappointed 18 million Democratic Party voters to foist Obama on us. Hillary wouldn't do anything to win. She would do anything to lose.


edit on 10/9/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: shawmanfromny


"Whatever happens, I'm just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh's life," the writer, Ariel Dumas, posted on Twitter. Dumas later briefly made her account private, preventing others from viewing her posts without her approval.

www.foxnews.com...

So, would most agree that the Left are primarily to blame for the current divisiveness between the two parties? Did the Right display this level of hostility towards Liberals and Obama, when he was in office? I'm honestly curious at what some of you think.


She was responding to a tweet referencing Lindsay Graham's hearing comment:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told his Democratic colleagues, "What you want is to destroy this guy's life."

She was aiming at sarcasm "Whatever happens, I'm just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh's life,"

Meaning that he received a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Very few people would consider that rare honor a "ruined life".



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

www.esquire.com...



In early 1995, however, Kavanaugh offered his boss, independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, the legal rationale for expanding his investigation of the Arkansas financial dealings of President Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary, to include the Foster death, according to a memo he wrote on March 24, 1995. Kavanaugh, then 30, argued that unsupported allegations that Foster may have been murdered gave Starr the right to probe the matter more deeply. Foster’s death had already been the focus of two investigations, both concluding that Foster committed suicide. “We are currently investigating Vincent Foster’s death to determine, among other things, whether he was murdered in violation of federal criminal law,” Kavanaugh wrote to Starr and six other officials in a memo offering legal justification for the probe. “[I]t necessarily follows that we must have the authority to fully investigate Foster’s death.”

That doesn't sound like a cover up to me. It sounds like Kavanaugh thought it may have been murder.

lawandcrime.com...


During his research, Wilentz discovered that Kavanaugh prompted his then-boss to reopen the long-since discredited investigation into the alleged murder of former White House counsel Vince Foster. Two previous, Republican-led investigations had thoroughly looked into the matter and came to same conclusion; Foster, plagued by a lifetime of clinical depression, had tragically committed suicide. Still, conservative conspiracy theorists pushed the Clinton involvement angle, and Kavanaugh chased that angle down.


I do not think his role as an "investigator" disqualifies him for a SCOTUS appointment.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
That doesn't sound like a cover up to me. It sounds like Kavanaugh thought it may have been murder.

I do not think his role as an "investigator" disqualifies him for a SCOTUS appointment.


It was murder and it was obvious from the evidence -- evidence that Kavanaugh distorted or omitted entirely from his report.

If he thought it may have been murder, then he went out of his way to cover it up. He had more than enough evidence to conclude Foster was murdered.

I know what the sanctioned narrative is..."the investigation was thorough, credible, by-the-book" and peppered with plenty of "this is a republican witch hunt."

The witnesses and the associate investigator who was pushed out of the investigation tell a different story and they are more credible than Esquire.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Interesting that none of the senators brought this up. It would have been much more polarizing than fake gang rape accusations.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Interesting that none of the senators brought this up. It would have been much more polarizing than fake gang rape accusations.


Who would bring it up? Democrats or Republicans?

Think about it.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Interesting that none of the senators brought this up. It would have been much more polarizing than fake gang rape accusations.


BTW, the Senate Judiciary Committee received a copy of the following letter with the request it be added to the record: Letter on Kavanaugh’s conduct during the Vince Foster investigation.


I hope you read it....



edit on 10/9/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Jokes on you Silly one! Trump will win in 2020 and then after his last term, Ivanka will win the Presidency! Get your meds ready now.
edit on 9-10-2018 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Good god, I'm so sick of you idiots and your uninformed gibberish. This is why none of you have any credibility, and the entire rest ofthe world makes fun of Trump supporters.
So its only liberals who do that? Is that what you're going with? While Ford is still getting a ton of death threats from Republicans? While Trump tries to destroy everybody who has the audacity to criticize him? Your GOP president has actively picked fights with, and tried to destroy, a multitude of people and businesses. Always punching way below his weight like the pathetic clown he is, of course. Limbaugh and O'Reilly made entire careers out of trying to destroy the lives of Democrats. You all do the exact same f***ing thing, you disingenuous dips**t. Stop being willfully stupid.
People on both sides do this, and that isn't even remotely debatable. Anybody who claims otherwise is overwhelmingly full of s**t. People on both sides do it, and the people who do it are representative of either party as a whole. Claiming otherwise is evidence of a small mind, a huge amount of denial, a lot of willful ignorance, and just plain dishonesty and stupidity. Pathetic clown.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Well gee, I dont know.... did the party whose supporters have spent the last decade posting disgustingly racist comments and pictures about the Obama's, who spent 8 years doing everything in their power to impede Obama and the Democrats no matter how much harm it did to the country, who hurls cliched and idiotic insults like snowflake and cuck at anybody who isn't GOP, and who is supported by/has supported slt-right white supremacy groups, who spent 8 years questioning Obama's heritage, who treats immigrants and minorities as subhuman, etc etc... did they maybe possibly contribute to the divisiveness? What a tough question! Pretty hard to figure out!
Give me a freaking break...



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maroboduus

Give me a freaking break...


Take a Break !!!

You deserve it.

😃😃



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aallanon
They want to ruin every legal, working, American citizens life.


How so?



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So if they are all in on it together, the dems and reps, why the need for the gang rape accusations?
They could have just quietly confirmed him similar to Gorsuch?
Is the Senate committee required to add to the record whatever is sent to them?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So if they are all in on it together, the dems and reps, why the need for the gang rape accusations?
They could have just quietly confirmed him similar to Gorsuch?


I have answered this a few times already.


originally posted by: shooterbrody
Is the Senate committee required to add to the record whatever is sent to them?


I doubt it. The letter does not refer to any law mandating the enclosures be added to the Congressional record. In fact, Knowlton and Turley make mention of having tried to add them to the record when Kavanaugh was nominated to serve on the D.C. Circuit and during the hearings reauthorizing the Ethics in Government Act.

Here, they have requested the letter and attachments be added to the Congressional record 'for posterity.'

From the letter:




posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye




They could have just quietly confirmed him similar to Gorsuch?

interesting you have no response to this...
why did they not install kavanaugh before gorsuch then?
or is gorsuch in on all this as well?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: MotherMayEye




They could have just quietly confirmed him similar to Gorsuch?

interesting you have no response to this...



I did respond to that. You are asking virtually that same question repeatedly and I have responded every time to it.

I said that it is Trump who needed his public supporters to support Kavanaugh and I explained that it is because there could not be a whiff of an alliance between him and the Clintons (or..the 'Deep State').

ETA: Therefore, they needed the Ford allegations to make it appear that Democrats were vehemently opposed to Kavanaugh when nothing could be further from the truth.



edit on 10/10/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

why did they not install kavanaugh before gorsuch then?
or is gorsuch in on all this as well?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: MotherMayEye

why did they not install kavanaugh before gorsuch then?
or is gorsuch in on all this as well?


I assume that Gorsuch was at the top of the list???



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So then the conspiracy for installing kavanaugh was important ....but not that important?
mkay
thanks



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So then the conspiracy for installing kavanaugh was important ....but not that important?
mkay
thanks


Oh, I think it was that important Kavanaugh was nominated and it was that important WHEN he was nominated.

I don't think you make a compelling argument suggesting Gorsuch going first proves that Kavanaugh's confirmation was not important enough to obfuscate the fact (and implications) that he was a central figure in covering up Vince Foster's murder.

Again, agree to disagree. I'm not willing to give any benefit of the doubt when it comes to a Clinton crime-fixer serving on the Supreme Court...I freely admit it and make no apologies. I'd feel like a chump if I did.




top topics



 
55
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join