"I dont believe that Kavagnagh assaulted Mrs Ford"

[Pogo]

Choosing to ignore all the details presented is not very credible either. Details like the outlay of the upstairs, the stairwell, the bed positioning, the music, the laughter.... you know, all the "nothing else" stuff described while you were going

and why should that ignorance of detail be surprising coming from a Warren Commission apologist.

Yet none of the "witnesses" remember that party. Seems like a pool party would be easier to remember.

Regardless what anything "seems like", people who went to a hundred such gatherings would be unlikely to remember any particular one in which nothing of significance happened to them personally, now would they.

 

[Leo123]

" But I do believe she was assaulted"

Ive seen this theory from a few people on the right now. Not least from Susan Collins.

What kind of crap is this ? How does this work ? Kav was the one thing she was sure about.

Let me translate for you:

" we dont give a fuck if she was raped or not but we have to put a face on to try and stop losing the womens vote".

Its just hypocrisy.

Well....belief is not evidence. That's how it works. No evidence, no witnesses, no memory, no crime. Of course we care if she was raped however, there is no evidence that Brett did it. None at all. The FBI found nothing after 6 investigations. You can't just make up crap about people.....unless.....of course....You're a libtard like those democrats.

And yet ----- you yourself got busted on exactly that last week, when you tried to claim Ford was "lying".

Apparently "belief is not evidence except when I say it is". Hypocrite.

If there is no evidence then she is probably lying. No evidence, no witnesses (when she claimed there was), no nothing. Yet she still claims assault after 35 years. Wouldn't you say she is probaly lying?

 

[Pogo]

" But I do believe she was assaulted"

Ive seen this theory from a few people on the right now. Not least from Susan Collins.

What kind of crap is this ? How does this work ? Kav was the one thing she was sure about.

Let me translate for you:

" we dont give a fuck if she was raped or not but we have to put a face on to try and stop losing the womens vote".

Its just hypocrisy.

Well....belief is not evidence. That's how it works. No evidence, no witnesses, no memory, no crime. Of course we care if she was raped however, there is no evidence that Brett did it. None at all. The FBI found nothing after 6 investigations. You can't just make up crap about people.....unless.....of course....You're a libtard like those democrats.

And yet ----- you yourself got busted on exactly that last week, when you tried to claim Ford was "lying".

Apparently "belief is not evidence except when I say it is". Hypocrite.

If there is no evidence then she must be lying, idiot.

Oh fucking bullshit.

You believe in God?

 

[Leo123]

" But I do believe she was assaulted"

Ive seen this theory from a few people on the right now. Not least from Susan Collins.

What kind of crap is this ? How does this work ? Kav was the one thing she was sure about.

Let me translate for you:

" we dont give a fuck if she was raped or not but we have to put a face on to try and stop losing the womens vote".

Its just hypocrisy.

No it is merely one possible explanation.

Mistaken identity has happened even deliberate misidentification.

Being sure of who while remembering nothing else is not very credible

Choosing to ignore all the details presented is not very credible either. Details like the outlay of the upstairs, the stairwell, the bed positioning, the music, the laughter.... you know, all the "nothing else" stuff described while you were going

And why should that ignorance of detail be surprising coming from a Warren Commission apologist.

Oh I see, she can remember everything except where she was and when it took place and even her 'witness' recanted. Like I said, no evidence, no witnesses, no nothing...except her spotty memory and her radical leftist 'resist' crap.

 

[Leo123]

You believe in God?

We are talking about false accusations by a human being not religion you moron.

 

[Pogo]

If there is no evidence then she is probably lying. No evidence, no witnesses (when she claimed there was), no nothing. Yet she still claims assault after 35 years. Wouldn't you say she is probaly lying?

Look at this asshat, EDITING his own post as soon as he gets busted on it.

Here's what the post said when I quoted it:

If there is no evidence then she must be lying, idiot.

BUSTED.

 

[Pogo]

You believe in God?

We are talking about false accusations by a human being not religion you moron.

No, we're talking about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

If you believe in "God", then you must have "evidence".

If you do not have evidence, then by the standard YOU JUST WROTE --- and then edited to change as soon as you were busted on it ---- you must be "lying".


CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS DOODLES.

 

[Soupnazi630]

" But I do believe she was assaulted"

Ive seen this theory from a few people on the right now. Not least from Susan Collins.

What kind of crap is this ? How does this work ? Kav was the one thing she was sure about.

Let me translate for you:

" we dont give a fuck if she was raped or not but we have to put a face on to try and stop losing the womens vote".

Its just hypocrisy.

Yeah, if you don't believe it was Kavanaugh, it's pretty perplexing how you believe the rest of it.
I agree.

Mistaken identity never happens?

Happens all the time, but not when you are looking at the man straight on while attempting to rape you.

There are cases of that happening

 

[Leo123]

We are talking about false accusations by a human being not religion you moron.

No, we're talking about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

If you believe in "God", then you must have "evidence".

If you do not have evidence, then by the standard YOU JUST WROTE --- and then edited to change as soon as you were busted on it ---- you must be "lying".


CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS DOODLES.[/QUOTE]

Belief does not require evidence when it comes to religion. When it comes to one human accusing another of a crime belief is just not enough. Sorry you can't seem to grasp the reality of it. Hard to believe that people like you exist.

 

[MaryL]

" But I do believe she was assaulted"

Ive seen this theory from a few people on the right now. Not least from Susan Collins.

What kind of crap is this ? How does this work ? Kav was the one thing she was sure about.

Let me translate for you:

" we dont give a fuck if she was raped or not but we have to put a face on to try and stop losing the womens vote".

Its just hypocrisy.

Yeah, if you don't believe it was Kavanaugh, it's pretty perplexing how you believe the rest of it.
I agree.

Mistaken identity never happens?

Happens all the time, but not when you are looking at the man straight on while attempting to rape you.

There are cases of that happening

Not to mention, well false accusations. That happens, too. Innocent till proven guilty is perhaps our most important legal concept.

 

[PredFan]

" But I do believe she was assaulted"

Ive seen this theory from a few people on the right now. Not least from Susan Collins.

What kind of crap is this ? How does this work ? Kav was the one thing she was sure about.

Let me translate for you:

" we dont give a fuck if she was raped or not but we have to put a face on to try and stop losing the womens vote".

Its just hypocrisy.

Bull shit. She’s a liar pure and simple. There is ample proof that she is lying, she lied several times to Congress, there is ZERO proof that she was even assaulted let alone by Kavanaugh.

 

[Leo123]

Not to mention, well false accusations. That happens, too. Innocent to proven guilty is perhaps our most important legal concept.

Not according to butt-hurt democrats and little Pogo.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

" But I do believe she was assaulted"

Ive seen this theory from a few people on the right now. Not least from Susan Collins.

What kind of crap is this ? How does this work ? Kav was the one thing she was sure about.

Let me translate for you:

" we dont give a fuck if she was raped or not but we have to put a face on to try and stop losing the womens vote".

Its just hypocrisy.

Worse than clickbait.

 

[Pogo]

We are talking about false accusations by a human being not religion you moron.

No, we're talking about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

If you believe in "God", then you must have "evidence".

If you do not have evidence, then by the standard YOU JUST WROTE --- and then edited to change as soon as you were busted on it ---- you must be "lying".


CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS DOODLES.

Belief does not require evidence when it comes to religion. When it comes to one human accusing another of a crime belief is just not enough. Sorry you can't seem to grasp the reality of it. Hard to believe that people like you exist.

What's hard to believe is that you can't negotiate a simple quote button.

AGAIN, assertion carries the burden of proof. When you say "she lied" ----- you assume the burden to PROVE she lied. When you can't do that --------- you lose.

Ain't rocket surgery.

And you already KNOW this since you rushed to change the words in your own post.

Get the hell outta here.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Ain't rocket surgery.

every single time

 

[bodecea]

" But I do believe she was assaulted"

Ive seen this theory from a few people on the right now. Not least from Susan Collins.

What kind of crap is this ? How does this work ? Kav was the one thing she was sure about.

Let me translate for you:

" we dont give a fuck if she was raped or not but we have to put a face on to try and stop losing the womens vote".

Its just hypocrisy.

Kavanaugh could rape a woman bloody in front of the nation, and conservatives would just salivate and beg for more

They certainly seem to enjoy that kind of thing...along with locking children in cages......

 

[Aba Incieni]

We are talking about false accusations by a human being not religion you moron.

No, we're talking about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

If you believe in "God", then you must have "evidence".

If you do not have evidence, then by the standard YOU JUST WROTE --- and then edited to change as soon as you were busted on it ---- you must be "lying".


CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS DOODLES.

Belief does not require evidence when it comes to religion. When it comes to one human accusing another of a crime belief is just not enough. Sorry you can't seem to grasp the reality of it. Hard to believe that people like you exist.

What's hard to believe is that you can't negotiate a simple quote button.

AGAIN, assertion carries the burden of proof. When you say "she lied" ----- you assume the burden to PROVE she lied. When you can't do that --------- you lose.

Ain't rocket surgery.

And you already KNOW this since you rushed to change the words in your own post.

Get the hell outta here.

Her own witnesses say she's full of shit. The woman, whom we are told to always believe, said she doesn't even know Kavanaugh.

Ford lied.

 

[Ame®icano]

" But I do believe she was assaulted"

Ive seen this theory from a few people on the right now. Not least from Susan Collins.

What kind of crap is this ? How does this work ? Kav was the one thing she was sure about.

Let me translate for you:

" we dont give a fuck if she was raped or not but we have to put a face on to try and stop losing the womens vote".

Its just hypocrisy.

To Democrats it doesn't matter.

Cory Booker: It Doesn't Matter If Kavanaugh Is Innocent Or Guilty

It was never about Christine Blasey and her accusations, they simply couldn't care less about her. She was used as tool to paint Kavanugh as unacceptable. Not because he's guilty, but because he's conservative.

 

[Leo123]

We are talking about false accusations by a human being not religion you moron.

No, we're talking about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

If you believe in "God", then you must have "evidence".

If you do not have evidence, then by the standard YOU JUST WROTE --- and then edited to change as soon as you were busted on it ---- you must be "lying".


CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS DOODLES.

Belief does not require evidence when it comes to religion. When it comes to one human accusing another of a crime belief is just not enough. Sorry you can't seem to grasp the reality of it. Hard to believe that people like you exist.

What's hard to believe is that you can't negotiate a simple quote button.

AGAIN, assertion carries the burden of proof. When you say "she lied" ----- you assume the burden to PROVE she lied. When you can't do that --------- you lose.

Ain't rocket surgery.

And you already KNOW this since you rushed to change the words in your own post.

Get the hell outta here.

Hard to believe you can't negotiate standard sayings. Come on Pogo, prove you are not a troll. Many believe you are and that (according to you) is 'evidence'.....Right?.

 

[Oldstyle]

Usually when British women get gang raped by muslims they remember what decade it was.

She knew the year, and he had it on his calendar, July 1st.

She didn’t narrow it down to that year until after demoquacks had interviewed Kav and spoken with her. But regardless of that, so what?
If I accuse you of something and pick a year, so what?
He had a calendar with July 1 st on it?
Wow.
That’s nearly as compelling as you citing the house had stairs and a bathroom as evidence earlier!
This farce has really unhinged you!

She sited the house , the bedroom and the bathroom, and by the way she sited the year too. Listen to her interview or prosecutors questioning again. It was the summer when she was 15.

Did you even listen to the testimony? Ford has no clue where the house was...only that it was somewhere between the country club and her house. It's patently unfair to accuse someone of a crime when you can't say where and when that crime took place! That kind of vague accusation wouldn't have held up for ten minutes in a court of law.