There is NO Way a Single Republican Can Vote NO on Judge Kavanaugh Thanks to the Porn Lawyer!

I wrote this the other night and updated it with the interview of the Porn Lawyer on the View from earlier this morning and his tweet sharing a photo of the 3rd accuser.

This POS from Arizona decided to be the voice of reason today on the Senate floor. He decided at the very end to take a few shoots at our President. However, he said something during his sermon that made me smile because he tipped his hand and cemented my point in the thread that the Porn Lawyer’s accuser is the Point of Diminishing Returns.

He says that he doesn’t believe for one second that Judge Kavanaugh is involved in gang rapes. That remark is critical. Because the Porn Lawyer’s victim accusations are so ridiculous, it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for any Republican to vote NO. The 3 allegations are lumped into one. There is no way you can say you believed the 1st accuser, was hesitant about the 2nd accuser and absolutely didn’t believe the 3rd. That is the dilemma for any Republican that wants to vote NO.

Lindsey Graham is absolutely right! Thank you Porn Lawyer. I hope and pray that you burn in hell!

9 thoughts on “There is NO Way a Single Republican Can Vote NO on Judge Kavanaugh Thanks to the Porn Lawyer!

  1. What crazy times we find ourselves in now!

    The Left has completely lost its mind. More: People are starting to realize this. If even a third as many people NOT on the Treehouse (and similar sites) realize this as the percentage ON the Treehouse do, we’re in great shape. (We have to be very careful not to wrap ourselves in a bubble of like-minded people when assessing what “Americans” (as a class) think.)

    My aunt apparently cannot bring herself to believe that Ford would advance false accusations, and therefore my aunt tends to believe her…but it’s a false dilemma. Ford could be telling the truth, she could be lying OR she could be deluded somehow.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I’ll admit there were a couple of days I thought this post might not “age well”, but sure enough it turned out to be correct! We had one no-show, who would have voted yes had he been there, and we had one who voted “present” but did not actually vote “no” – and then, the kicker is we got 2 Dems to vote Yes to make up the difference! We didn’t even need to have Pence break a tie!! Unbelievable winning!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. In all honesty, Murkowski would have voted No if Daines was present to vote yes. I also thought Donnelly and Heitkamp would vote Yes.

      However, at the Ed of the day he is sitting on the Supreme Court and that is all that matters.😉

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Can’t disagree with your evaluation of her.

        On the plus side, she was at LEAST willing to participate in cancelling out the effect of Daines’s absence rather than just voting No anyway. The very best of the old bipartisanship.

        Except that, NOMINALLY at least, she’s in the SAME party.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s