Has an axe to grind because they didn't get along over 30 years ago? Why would they talk to a witness with relevant information? Are you serious? Do you think investigators don't talk to interested witnesses (that's assuming that Roche actually has held a grudge for 30 years)? How about Dr. Appold? Why did they deem him not worth their time? How about the other 20ish witnesses? What is the excuse for not talking to them? Also, Kavanaugh never claimed in his testimony that Roche (his roommate) didn't like him. He claimed there were issues between Roche and a third roommate (White). He then pointed the Senators to redacted testimony.
If this assault never happened then why push this nomination through and why restrict the FBI investigation? A more complete investigation would have gone a long way to providing information as to whether she lied....or he lied. Slut shaming doesn't provided answers.....so I guess you really don't want any answer. Maybe afraid of the answer.
The image is on twitter, but here is a link to a Hot Air article that shows a blown up shot of the yearbook page of Bernard McCarthy. It says: "Devil's Triangle 9 founder of the name)" Looks like the 9 was a typo for (. Letters to the Judiciary Committee: 'Devil's Triangle' was just a drinking game (Update: The book on boofed)
The liberals on this board are the ones who started the name calling calling Kavanaugh every name in the book. If you cannot take it don’t dish it out. Just because Ford comes up with some cock and bull lie about a so called sexual event she cannot prove does not entitle her to be treated with kid gloves
So still no mention of it as a drinking game? Because none of those quotes from before the hearing say it is a drinking game.
And whose fault is that ? Democrats for sitting on it for two months and not bringing it up till they were ready for the vote trying to delay it or here Kavanaugh would drop out. It did not work the Democrats have been called out for it. If slut shaming is not the answer why all the attacks on Kavanaugh when no prof has been presented and no Fords word is not prof
You need to go back and re-read this thread......Kavanaugh wasn't called names. A moderator here just mentioned today that this thread had remained civil and widely discussed by many. Good discussion here.
She isnt even accusing him of rape. According to her story he was mauling her in a bedroom when someone jumped on the bed and she got away. Attempted rape or sexual assault is what she is alleging.
The Dems had a strategy.....if the Pubs had done this, you'd be applauding. Ultimately, the fault for all this is Kavanaugh's. He presented himself as a hard studying, good person.......it turns out he isn't. If he'd been honest from the get go, this would never have blown up in his face.
What part of someone having political and/or personal motivations to blow up a SCOTUS nomination don't you get? He has no relevant information because he was not at the the party where Ramirez said she was assaulted. Not one of those people can say that they were there that night. The FBI doesn't contact people to listen to second and third hand stories. Roche clearly has it out for Kavanaugh probably for political and personal reasons. He is almost turning in to the Avenatti of wanna be witness at this point, by jumping up and down on the sidelines screaming "Look at me! Come talk to me!" Roche can claim whatever he wants to but it is clear that the FBI feels that they have talked to enough of Kavanaugh's classmates at Yale that they have a clear understanding of what he was like while he was there. There is a reason these investigations are suppose to happen quietly and out of the public eye. It is to avoid exactly what Roche is trying to do.
Someone’ yearbook entry said they lost at Devil’s Triangle, which would indicate that it was some type of game. Someone else said they came up with the name which would counter the argument that there was an existing, widespread sexual definition of that phrase.
So a kid in '82 that went to Georgetown Prep was the first one to coin the phrase Devil's Triangle for a sex act while he was in high school? Also, did you see the later entry where he says he "lost in Devil Triangle."
So the Princeton Theologian who has never donated to either political party (as far as they could find) had a political or personal motive to blow up a SCOTUS nomination? You'll have to flesh that one out. As far as Roche goes, even if he's accused of having a motive, you still talk to him. Mark Judge has a motive for not remembering, but nobody in their right mind would say you should ignore him. Investigators talk to interested witnesses all the time. You claim that he has it out for Kavanaugh. I think you're blinded by partisanship there. A number of people who knew him from Yale came out against him for downplaying his drinking. Roche is one of them. I guess you can claim they all have ulterior motives, but that seems quite doubtful. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. This is unbelievably wrong.
Something I learned about this board many years about, your going to argue for your side no matter the issue until your face is blue. No one here is ever going to change their mind based on what they read here. The reality is the back and fourth here sometimes is no better then the fools we have elected.
The Pubs did have a strategy. McConnell held virtually no confirmation hearings for Obama’s nominee for years, leaving Trump with 2-3 times the normal numbers of trial and appeals court vacancies to be filled.
