Keith Koegler Releases Significant Evidence Corroborating Dr. Ford’s Claims "With the vote to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh scheduled to take place on the Senate floor at approximately 5 PM ET today, a new corroborating witness has released a sworn declaration backing up Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against the Supreme Court Nominee. Keith Koegler, a friend of Dr. Ford has, through his legal counsel, released publicly a signed sworn declaration which he had previously submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The corroborating evidence appears to be quite significant, in that Koegler has corroborating emails between himself and Dr. Ford." "Koegler then takes aim at the FBI investigation of the allegations against Kavanaugh, implying that they were a sham by saying that the fact that neither Kavanaugh or Ford were interviewed in the process, which Republicans called “thorough”, is “absurd”." He will be confirmed, but it is far from over. More and more gradually coming out.
Kavanaugh’s Drinking Buddies Oppose His Nomination We were college classmates and drinking buddies with Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh. In the past week, all three of us decided separately to respond to questions from the media regarding Brett’s honesty, or lack thereof… We each asserted that Brett lied to the Senate by stating, under oath, that he never drank to the point of forgetting what he was doing. We said, unequivocally, that each of us, on numerous occasions, had seen Brett stumbling drunk to the point that it would be impossible for him to state with any degree of certainty that he remembered everything that he did when drunk. None of this is what we wanted, but we felt it our civic duty to speak the truth and say that Brett lied under oath while seeking to become a Supreme Court justice. That is our one and only message, but it is a significant one. For we each believe that telling the truth, no matter how difficult, is a moral obligation for our nation’s leaders. No one should be able to lie their way onto the Supreme Court.
Then how were you able to determine that it was "non-existent" in 1982? There must be some great source somewhere determining that it was "non-existent" somewhere. Can someone direct me to this oracle of all-knowing truth?
Who 'determined' it was nonexistent? Point me there first. (...let alone where i made any such 'determination').
If they get nomd for SCOTUS, itll show up on urbandic as playing with little boys' balls...unless the POTUS at the time is a dem, in which case it will be defined as a charity ball with a clever nsme.
We both might be a little off on this one. "The first workable prototype of the Internet came in the late 1960s with the creation of ARPANET, or the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Originally funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, ARPANET used packet switching to allow multiple computers to communicate on a single network. The technology continued to grow in the 1970s after scientists Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf developed Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol, or TCP/IP, a communications model that set standards for how data could be transmitted between multiple networks. ARPANET adopted TCP/IP on January 1, 1983, and from there researchers began to assemble the “network of networks” that became the modern Internet. The online world then took on a more recognizable form in 1990, when computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web. While it’s often confused with the Internet itself, the web is actually just the most common means of accessing data online in the form of websites and hyperlinks. The web helped popularize the Internet among the public, and served as a crucial step in developing the vast trove of information that most of us now access on a daily basis." Who invented the internet? Looks like the technology existed well before 1982, but was not widely available as it is today. I might be getting a little hypersensitive with so much excessive misrepresentation of opinion being absolute fact. I mean, I can do it but if the other side does then they hate america, support sexual assault, are sneakily trying to take over the world, yada, yada, yada.
What a vag post....gotta appeal to the refs for mercy? Aka tappn out. Just tip your king like a big boy, come back n play another game, when the pieces are set back up for a new game... Geeeeezzz....
No, we're both not off by a little bit, unless u actuallt read my post literally. The inet was no where to be found in indivudual homes in the early 80s, so what some coloquialism might have met in maryland or va....could easily be completely different than in Fla, or NY, or Cali.... There was no 'urbandic' where you could go to centralize some lingo. We had tv n hollywood n some books, and that was pretty much. Beyond that, u n your buds were free to come up with ur own lingo.
@CaptUSMCNole I guess you're not going to address the points made here. Is it because it contradicts the arguments you made favoring the investigation (I'm sorry, "background check")? It's not an opinion that he lied. There are multiple spots showing that he either lied or engaged in intentional misrepresentations. There is corroboration for both Ford and Ramirez' claims. There is a lot of corroboration for Ramirez' claim. There is a lot of evidence that he lied under oath. There is overwhelming evidence that he disqualified himself by acting the way he did at the hearing. And that's without even getting to his judicial record.
