Feinstein: ‘I Had To Leave’ – Did Not Read Entire Report

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: underwerks

I don't care who read it or not. Don't not read it then claim it's incomplete. Especially when you can't say what verified substantive evidence is missing.

Obviously you do care, since the OP is you railing against Feinstein for not reading it.

I hope everyone else can see the irony here. OP is ranting about how not reading the FBI report makes Feinstein a hypocrite, while in reality the Trump admin didn’t give any Senators enough time to read it. Including everyone on the right.

The real question is why isn’t the Trump admin giving senators enough time to read over the FBI report before making a decision?

The other question is, how dumb does the OP think you all are? You’d have to not know anything about the FBI report to see the OP as true. If I was right wing I’d be angry if someone assumed I was that stupid.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JBurns


All of Brett Kavanaugh’s Lies www.gq.com...

Kavanaugh: 31 Lies and Counting medium.com...@demandjustice/kavanaugh-29-lies-and-counting-69ab6dee833d

All of Brett Kavanaugh’s lies, distortions and absurdities newssummedup.com...’s-lies-distortions-and-absurdities-lkjv6c

Brett Kavanaugh’s Perjury Avalanche — 50 Years in the Making www.alternet.org...

Nice collection of cowchips.
Are you a fertilizer vendor?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What lie? What lie did he tell? There aren't any. If there were Senate Democrats would be screaming at the top of their lungs on every pro-democrat cable TV station.

Worst part is you know there isn't any part he lied about. At least nothing substantial. Incidental or irrelevant false statements (or false statements to questions they had no business asking) don't count, at least not to me. Unlike the "purity" far-left, we won't "eat our own" (like Franken) over something minor. I have no intentions of handing democrats a victory because our candidate isn't *perfect*

And to be totally honest, there is nothing he could've done 35 years ago that outweighs what he's done since. Very little he could've done, anyhow. As much as democrats are cemented against us and our movement, we (at least I) am equally cemented in my own positions.

We've tried for 2 years to compromise, discuss and negotiate and its gotten us nowhere. No longer. I have zero interest in compromise - since every issue the right takes up involves defending the Constitution not some fringe/divisive wedge identity politics nonsense.

a reply to: underwerks

Actually it's her not reading it, not using her full hour, then saying it was incomplete despite not knowing what's in it.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Can you show me any Senator who read this 1000 page report in the 24 hours they were given to read it? Democrat or Republican?

What a farce of an OP.

A copy of the document is locked behind closed doors and the report cannot leave that room. Senators will not be allowed to take a copy outside of the U.S. Capitol to review in their offices or at home this evening. That gives them less than 24 hours to read 1,000 pages at the same time their colleagues are also trying to read it. They would be required to read one-page per minute to read it all in less than 17 hours.

Link

Do you really think there’s one copy? The senators and aids can easily divide up the document.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

I hope that's sarcasm. Giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Lol hell I'm 58 and have reading glasses, I have done the same thing, you ever see someone young looking for their sun glasses and they are on their head......wait until you need them and your normal vision is 20/20...

a reply to: underwerks

Funny when the people who held the accusations until the 11th hour whine about time.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Boom.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: underwerks

I don't care who read it or not. Don't not read it then claim it's incomplete. Especially when you can't say what verified substantive evidence is missing.

Obviously you do care, since the OP is you railing against Feinstein for not reading it.

I hope everyone else can see the irony here. OP is ranting about how not reading the FBI report makes Feinstein a hypocrite, while in reality the Trump admin didn’t give any Senators enough time to read it. Including everyone on the right.

The real question is why isn’t the Trump admin giving senators enough time to read over the FBI report before making a decision?

The other question is, how dumb does the OP think you all are? You’d have to not know anything about the FBI report to see the OP as true. If I was right wing I’d be angry if someone assumed I was that stupid.

Perhaps that has something to do with this dragging on far too long as it is, the dems have been allowed to play there game long enough.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: underwerks

Actually it's her not reading it, not using her full hour, then saying it was incomplete despite not knowing what's in it.

If she doesn’t know what’s in it, you don’t know what’s in it, and the Republican senators don’t know what’s in it, how can any of you call someone out for not knowing what’s in it?

This is like some quantum field of hypocrisy you have swirling around you.

a reply to: underwerks

Perhaps if she had done a better job vetting the accusations she sat on for a month like a rotten goose egg?

a reply to: underwerks

Because she's the only one making the claim she doesn't know what's in it, but then makes a judgement which requires knowing.

How are you defending this?

originally posted by: BigDave-AR

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Can you show me any Senator who read this 1000 page report in the 24 hours they were given to read it? Democrat or Republican?

What a farce of an OP.

A copy of the document is locked behind closed doors and the report cannot leave that room. Senators will not be allowed to take a copy outside of the U.S. Capitol to review in their offices or at home this evening. That gives them less than 24 hours to read 1,000 pages at the same time their colleagues are also trying to read it. They would be required to read one-page per minute to read it all in less than 17 hours.

Link

Do you really think there’s one copy? The senators and aids can easily divide up the document.

Where did you get that from? Of course there’s more than one copy. Do you believe any senator voting on Kavanaugh read the entire report in the less than 24 hours they have to read it?

As I posted above:

That gives them less than 24 hours to read 1,000 pages at the same time their colleagues are also trying to read it. They would be required to read one-page per minute to read it all in less than 17 hours.

No one read it. It’s the height of hypocrisy to call out others for not reading a document, when no one has read or was even given the proper amount of time to read it.

Again, the real question is why isn’t the White House allowing the senators enough time to read it?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xtrozero

He has 100s of women supporting him...

So? All of Ted Bundy's neighbor's thought he was a nice guy. Happens all the time.

Also, some of those women have openly pulled their names from those lists too.

Lots of pressure out there, and if some pulled their support there is still 100s that haven't...

We are talking about women that worked side by side with him for decades, seen him day in and out...etc

I don't even know 1/2 my neighbors names or what they do the 23.5 hours or more per day I don't see them. The 30 people that work for me I know a lot about...a hell of a lot...

You do know he has supported more women in the judicial system than any other Judge including Ginsburg? Does that carry even an ounce of weight with you?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Jeesh. "dodging" a question isn't lying. Denying Ford, et al's allegations are not lying - that's called sticking up for yourself and refuting a terrible and highly politicized accusation presented without a shred of proof that every named "witness" contradicts.

...and if being a drunk as a teen ager is wrong, then consider me very, very wrong. I don't know many people, especially when the drinking age was 18 (or not enforced at all) who didn't drink. At least our generation didn't have (or flaunt) drug problems, heroine junkies, coke/crack heads, etc.

I bet if Kavanaugh was a user of a certain medically used but Federally scheduled substance you all wouldn't be attacking him so vociferously.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: BigDave-AR

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Can you show me any Senator who read this 1000 page report in the 24 hours they were given to read it? Democrat or Republican?

What a farce of an OP.

A copy of the document is locked behind closed doors and the report cannot leave that room. Senators will not be allowed to take a copy outside of the U.S. Capitol to review in their offices or at home this evening. That gives them less than 24 hours to read 1,000 pages at the same time their colleagues are also trying to read it. They would be required to read one-page per minute to read it all in less than 17 hours.

Link

Do you really think there’s one copy? The senators and aids can easily divide up the document.

Where did you get that from? Of course there’s more than one copy. Do you believe any senator voting on Kavanaugh read the entire report in the less than 24 hours they have to read it?

As I posted above:

That gives them less than 24 hours to read 1,000 pages at the same time their colleagues are also trying to read it. They would be required to read one-page per minute to read it all in less than 17 hours.

No one read it. It’s the height of hypocrisy to call out others for not reading a document, when no one has read or was even given the proper amount of time to read it.

Again, the real question is why isn’t the White House allowing the senators enough time to read it?

The very hatchet piece article the dude I was replying to posted....and quoted...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: underwerks

Because she's the only one making the claim she doesn't know what's in it, but then makes a judgement which requires knowing.

How are you defending this?

So, no one read it, but it’s her that’s in the wrong for admitting she doesn’t know what’s in it?

Lol.

I guess she should have just went along with the Republican senators who acted like they’re sure of what’s in it, even though they don’t know either.

She wouldn’t have been a hypocrite then, right?

a reply to: underwerks

They do know what is in it. They know because they've read several already, and the 6 total investigations he's been subjected to. And this includes the super-in depth SSBI for several key national security top level Top Secret + SCI positions/clearances he's held. #, he held Yankee White (or Fire) clearance required to be in the same room with the President without USSS - there is no higher or carefully vetted clearance, AFAIK.

There's no reason because we already know the allegations are false/politicized, and don't need the FBI's opinion forms (form 302) to tell us whether he's lying or not. We know he's not already. And you'll need video/DNA evidence to change that, basically. Good luck.

originally posted by: JBurns

...and if lying about being a drunk as a teen ager is wrong, then consider me very, very wrong. I don't know many people, especially when the drinking age was 18 (or not enforced at all) who didn't drink. At least our generation didn't have (or flaunt) drug problems, heroine junkies, coke/crack heads, etc.

I bet if Kavanaugh was a user of a certain medically used but Federally scheduled substance you all wouldn't be attacking him so vociferously.

He never lied about drinking...he said at times he drank past the legal limit...This is a true statement...

And now he has passed 51 to 49 for this to go to the final vote...