As Twitchy reported earlier, a lot of heads belonging to people of all political persuasions exploded earlier Tuesday when it was reported that President Trump was comparing the case of missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi to the confirmation battle over Brett Kavanaugh.
In short, all of the world is convinced that Khashoggi was executed in the Saudi consulate in Turkey, and Trump needs to crack down now. Trump, however, isn’t rushing to judgment. Here’s how NBC News reported it:
"I think we have to find out what happened first," President Trump told the AP. "Here we go again with, you know, you're guilty until proven innocent. I don't like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I'm concerned."
— NBC News (@NBCNews) October 16, 2018
Trump might be the only holdout left not blaming the Saudis (rumor is the Saudis plan to say a “rogue agent” killed Khashoggi), but Washington Post conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin had something to say about it — something we can’t make out, but it includes Republicans melting down and Christine Blasey Ford’s polygraph test.
Trump apparently thinks there is no corroboration for Saudi's killing of Khashoggi, who is dead. Others deny or really cannot recall. No evidence! This is insane but precisely how they rationalized Kavanaugh.
— Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) October 16, 2018
BTW, for all the R's melting down because there was no "corroboration" for Kavanaugh. First, there were in prior statements and polygraph. Second, should we then not hold Catholic priests responsible since it was simply their word against a child decades ago?
— Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) October 16, 2018
Recommended
Like we said up above, we couldn’t quite make out what she was trying to say, but it has something to do with the Saudis, Christine Blasey Ford, Ford’s two-question polygraph test, a GOP meltdown, the Catholic Church’s pedophilia scandal, and corroborating evidence.
Are you okay?
— Jaihawkk (@Jaihawkk) October 16, 2018
Bad take in 3, 2, 1
— Gomie ?Manchu 1/9 (@GomieBJJPurple) October 16, 2018
. No one is melting down. Who are you talking about? Grab me a beer while you fabricate an answer, please.
— Buddy Belk (@LessGovMoreFun) October 16, 2018
What meltdown, the Rs won. They’ve moved on. Maybe you’re the only “conservative” still obsessing about it.
— Serenity Now (@johnfrendo) October 16, 2018
The only melting down I've seen is the morons beating on the scotus door because they aren't happy with the new justice.
— Ⓖⓘⓜⓟ⭐⭐⭐ (@Gimpmaker) October 16, 2018
September called. It wants its news cycle back.
— Jack at the Door (@DoorknobJack) October 17, 2018
Keep up the great work you’re doing. You’ll surely destroy Trump and the GOP next time. Or maybe the time after that.
— What a Stupid Time to be Alive (@mrd125) October 16, 2018
*checks the calendar*
— prop op (@ProperOpinion) October 16, 2018
Looks up definition of 'corroboration'…but then decides doesn't matter…because JUSTICE KAVANAUGH LOL.
— Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D., M.S. (@Neoavatara) October 16, 2018
Narrator: There was, in fact, no corroboration. There were a lot of inconsistent statements by Ford, as well as fuzzy memories about trivial matters as when, where and even what year.
— Steve Campbell (@ReformedWriter) October 17, 2018
Those were not corroborations. It was merely what Ford allegedly said to others (and some were actually contradictory).
How hard is it for you to understand that no person present as named by her corroborated her story?
— Greg Falco (@Greg_F_L) October 16, 2018
1) Surely you realize that statements made <6 years ago about an event that happened 36 years ago is pretty weak corroboration
2) What the what?— just alan (@anythingbutdem) October 16, 2018
I really believe you need to talk to actual, working prosecutors on this, hon. There was never any "there" to Fords claims. None.
For heaven's sakes, Betty & Barney Hill's claims had tons more specificity than Fords!! You need to withdraw from public for awhile & reflect.— Darleen Click (@darleenclick) October 16, 2018
Her statement did not match the therapist notes
The polygraph was a joke
She attempted to suborn perjury in asking Keyser to change sworn testimony— mallen (@mallen2010) October 16, 2018
What polygraph? 2 questions, one of which was swearing that a statement showing corrections (either before or after, unclear) was true?
— Robert BorkBorkBork (@R_BorkBorkBork) October 16, 2018
No such thing as a 2 question polygraph you have to ask several questions to establish baseline.
But Ford knew that already
— #MeThree?☠️ (@_Me_Three) October 17, 2018
Oh the famous polygraph results. The raw data of which she refused to turn over?
— Grover Dill (@grover_lou) October 16, 2018
Polygraphs. Lol.
— Phila365 (@phillydilly86) October 17, 2018
First off, way to create a non-sequitor. Second of all polygraphs are historically unreliable and aren't even admissible in court. Thanks for playing.
— SpookyFish (@anachronism2) October 17, 2018
Polygraphs are NOT admissible in court. The "witnesses" Ford named refuted her claims. As the accuser its required that Ford prove her case. It is NOT required for Kavanaugh to prove his innocence. The only ones having a meltdown over this is the unhinged left and yourself.
— Tim (@Xcathdra) October 16, 2018
Prior statements are not evidence…..and an attorney facilitated polygraph is never considered evidentiary……. Your last sentence is so unrelated it doesn't deserve a response.
— R Whisk (@RWhisk1) October 16, 2018
1. "Prior statements" aren't corroboration.
2. A polygraph isn't corroboration.What law school did you go to? Juanita's Skool of Lawz and Cozmetology?
— RDNK Attorney (@RKBA_Attorney) October 17, 2018
Rubin: so if you wanted some sort of evidence in one case are you now wanting evidence in every case.
Every reasonable person ever: Yes.
— MethBurrito (@housOfpAin223) October 16, 2018
What's more accurate, Betsy Warren is a Cherokee, or Jennifer Rubin is a Conservative?
— Captain Cargo Pumpkin (@RedneckEducated) October 17, 2018
What are you talking about? Who among republicans is protecting priests? The difference is there is strong evidence of rape and assault by priests and nothing of the sort against Kavanaugh. You’re disgusting
— Ted Crumpet (@Tcrumps) October 17, 2018
In the case of the Catholic priests, there very often is evidence in the form of the Churches moving priests to new parishes where they added additional victims.
This is a horrible take and you should feel bad about it.
— AdeptArcher (@BoraxCross) October 16, 2018
BTW, you actually get paid to be this ridiculous?
— Rudy Harris (@t0eknife) October 17, 2018
White people, come get your crazy cat lady. https://t.co/xyIWZcDRGB
— ❌ William Strunk, Jr. ❌ (@cdrusnret) October 16, 2018
Thank you, thank you for reminding me why I’m voting Republican in the midterms.
— Phil (@earlp1231) October 17, 2018
Related:
'COME THE F**K ON'! Donald Trump's take on Jamal Khashoggi's murder raises more than a few eyebrows https://t.co/vr32UeS1ty
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) October 16, 2018
Join the conversation as a VIP Member