I no longer believe the accusers

[bripat9643]

And they care what you think because......?

Thanks to democrat scum, women everywhere are going to have a much harder time proving anything. Thanks demoscum.

Pure bullshit.

Republicans didn't believe any of the 15 women who came forward about Trump's "issues"..

Did you forget that?

Republicans only believe women when it is about Dems...ya know...like Al Franken

Republicans did not force Franken to resign. Democrats did. Furthermore, we have photographic evidence of Franken's crimes. All of the bimbos accusing Trump were proven to be liars. Hillary paid them off. Lisa Blum admitted it.

 

[bripat9643]

Bad analogy. 36 year old allegations that ONLY surface when his appt came up are spurious at best. She didn't say anything when he worked for Starr.
She didn't anything when Bush apptd him.
She waited until AFTER the proceedings were coming to a close in a last ditch effort to stop it. It was political from the start.
7 FBI background checks and nothing. You find her "credible" because of your politics, nothing more.
65 women supported him in a letter.
All the women that worked for him gave him glowing recommendations.
NONE of her witnesses corroborated her accusations.

It was political from the start. He is guilty because you "feel" he is guilty.

-Actually 1 of those 65 woman said she was hurt and embarrassed by what Kavanaugh wrote about her in the yearbook Renata was her name. As to the 64 others. If I try really hard I think I can come up with 65 woman I knew in high school I didn't try to rape and even will speak well of me. I will even assume the same for you. Neither is his support universal. Is Brett Kavanaugh’s High School Ditching Him? Nearly 100 Alumni Sign Petition Against the Supreme Court Nominee.
-As to my analogy. It would also be just an instance of a victim speaking up, ONLY to deny this fictitious coach a position so why is it a bad analogy?
-As to the background check. Do you think the FBI speaks to everybody you have ever met when they perform a background check, or seven in this case? I sure as hell don't.

People like you pick and choose based on what you "feel". Sorry but that isn't how things work. I don't make decisions based on feeling, only facts. 7 background checks and nothing but that isn't convenient so you discount it.
Emotions and feelings are the stuff of the weak in these matters, sorry.

People make decisions on feelings all the time. You felt that Trump would be a better President then Clinton. You feel that Ford is lying. Maybe you even feel that God exist. Point is in a lot of decisions in life feeling is often the only thing to go by.

My decisions aren't based on feelings. They are based on facts. I didn't feel Trump would be a better president than the corrupt criminal Hillary. I knew it based on the facts I know about each of them. I also know that Ford is lying.

What you *SHOULD* know by now is that you can't prove that negative. You've been busted on it before.

Nevertheless, here you come again selling the same shit, oblivious to the fact that you'll just get called on it again. Then you'll lick your wounds wondering what happened because you never learn.

When I have ever wasted my time trying to prove a negative? Your moronic insistence they I do so only proves what a dumbass you are.

 

[Lesh]

And they care what you think because......?

Thanks to democrat scum, women everywhere are going to have a much harder time proving anything. Thanks demoscum.

Pure bullshit.

Republicans didn't believe any of the 15 women who came forward about Trump's "issues"..

Did you forget that?

Republicans only believe women when it is about Dems...ya know...like Al Franken

And what issues would those be?

15 women..those issues

 

[Lesh]

And they care what you think because......?

Thanks to democrat scum, women everywhere are going to have a much harder time proving anything. Thanks demoscum.

Pure bullshit.

Republicans didn't believe any of the 15 women who came forward about Trump's "issues"..

Did you forget that?

Republicans only believe women when it is about Dems...ya know...like Al Franken

Republicans did not force Franken to resign. Democrats did. Furthermore, we have photographic evidence of Franken's crimes. All of the bimbos accusing Trump were proven to be liars. Hillary paid them off. Lisa Blum admitted it.

Republicans were SCREAMING

And yes Dems do deal with these issues when they arise..unlike Republicans who attack the women...like you just did

 

[Tilly]

How can an accusation be credible when there’s nothing to back it up and even her own witnesses, including a friend, don’t corroborate any part of her story?
FFS!

Her friend actually issued a statement she believed Ford. She simply stated she couldn't remember the incident. As to why it is credible. You have to look at her testimony, asses if she comes over as believable. Hear Kavanaugh speak and do the same. At that point you have to see who you believe. Not for nothing, EVERYBODY including Trump said she was credible.

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

What about you don’t get to destroy man’s reputation, career and life on the baisis of cos i said so dont you get?

The onus of proof is not on the accused, and certainly not when their are so few details provided by the accuser that you are prevented from even providing an alibi.

Now that you persist in this stupidity, I hope this happens to you, then you’ll see how quickly clarity depends on that muddled cucked mind of yours.

Your onus of proof to call her a liar is on you. Yet you have not provided it either. Why does that not apply to you?

For the umpteenth time, here are just a few reasons I do not believe her and why I could not support a man’s good name and career being ruined!

Fraud has repeatedly changed the few details she provided in her story

Her witnesses, even friends, not only do not corroborate her story, but her friend even states she has never even met the accused

Her friend was then pressurised to issue another statement to say she believed Fraud anyway

Fraud lied about being unable to fly

Fraud lied about the reason and the timing of installing an additional door

Fraud stated she did not name Kav in her 2012 marriage therapy notes, nor in her 2013 individual therapy notes.

But Frauds husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.


Fraud allegedly does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.

She also, allegedly, does not remember how she got to the party

She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.

She does not remember how she got from the party back home.

Dr Fraud, for the first time - during testimony- alleged that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
But, conveniently (again) she does not remember who that was, and no one has come forward as the driver.

She remembers none of these important details but does remember with great clarity the number of beers she had. (Lol).

Items from Mitchell’s report:

All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”

Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.

Dr. Fraud has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.

According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.


Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.

According to the Washington Post ’s account of her therapy notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted.

She told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom.

In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the party.

In her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come forward.

Dr. Fraud listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth as a “bystander” in her statement to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post, although she testified that it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyths.

Smyth’s. Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.

Dr. Fraud struggled to remember her interactions with the
Washington Post
.

She allegedly could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter.

She does not remember whether she showed the Postreporter
thetherapist’s notes or her own summary of those notes. The
Washington Post article said that “portions” of her “therapist’s notes” were “provided by Ford and reviewed by” the Post.

.But in her testimony, Dr. Ford could not recall whether she summarized the notes for the reporter or showed her the actual records.

She does not remember if she actually had a copy of the notes when she texted the Washington Post WhatsApp account on July 6.

Dr. Fraud said in her first WhatsApp message to the Post
that she “ha[d] therapy notes talking about” the incident when she contacted the Post
’stipline. She testified that she had reviewed her therapy notes before contacting the Post to determine whether the mentioned anything about the alleged incident, but could not remember if she had a copy of those notes, as she said in her WhatsApp message, or merely reviewed them in her therapist’s office.

Dr. Ford refused to provide anyof her therapy notes to the Committee, and continues to refuse!

There’s plenty more in Mitchell’s report (link below) regarding the holes in her allegations and testimony. And her former boyfriend has come forward and exposed more of her lies, an example of which is her familiarity and experience with polygraphs.

Only someone who is utterly desperate to believe her would find her ‘credible’ in any way.

I suggest you read Mitchell’s report!

Mitchell Memo | Dianne Feinstein | Witness

 

[talksalot]

And they care what you think because......?

Thanks to democrat scum, women everywhere are going to have a much harder time proving anything. Thanks demoscum.

How was it easier before?

I don't think it's ever been easy to gain credibility when you wait 36 years to accuse someone.

 

[Tilly]

Her friend actually issued a statement she believed Ford. She simply stated she couldn't remember the incident. As to why it is credible. You have to look at her testimony, asses if she comes over as believable. Hear Kavanaugh speak and do the same. At that point you have to see who you believe. Not for nothing, EVERYBODY including Trump said she was credible.

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

What about you don’t get to destroy man’s reputation, career and life on the baisis of cos i said so dont you get?

The onus of proof is not on the accused, and certainly not when their are so few details provided by the accuser that you are prevented from even providing an alibi.

Now that you persist in this stupidity, I hope this happens to you, then you’ll see how quickly clarity depends on that muddled cucked mind of yours.

Your onus of proof to call her a liar is on you. Yet you have not provided it either. Why does that not apply to you?

For the umpteenth time, here are just a few reasons I do not believe her and why I could not support a man’s good name and career being ruined!

Fraud has repeatedly changed the few details she provided in her story

Her witnesses, even friends, not only do not corroborate her story, but her friend even states she has never even met the accused

Her friend was then pressurised to issue another statement to say she believed Fraud anyway

Fraud lied about being unable to fly

Fraud lied about the reason and the timing of installing an additional door

Fraud stated she did not name Kav in her 2012 marriage therapy notes, nor in her 2013 individual therapy notes.

But Frauds husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.


Fraud allegedly does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.

She also, allegedly, does not remember how she got to the party

She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.

She does not remember how she got from the party back home.

Dr Fraud, for the first time - during testimony- alleged that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
But, conveniently (again) she does not remember who that was, and no one has come forward as the driver.

She remembers none of these important details but does remember with great clarity the number of beers she had. (Lol).

Items from Mitchell’s report:

All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”

Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.

Dr. Fraud has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.

According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.


Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.

According to the Washington Post ’s account of her therapy notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted.

She told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom.

In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the party.

In her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come forward.

Dr. Fraud listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth as a “bystander” in her statement to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post, although she testified that it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyths.

Smyth’s. Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.

Dr. Fraud struggled to remember her interactions with the
Washington Post
.

She allegedly could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter.

She does not remember whether she showed the Postreporter
thetherapist’s notes or her own summary of those notes. The
Washington Post article said that “portions” of her “therapist’s notes” were “provided by Ford and reviewed by” the Post.

.But in her testimony, Dr. Ford could not recall whether she summarized the notes for the reporter or showed her the actual records.

She does not remember if she actually had a copy of the notes when she texted the Washington Post WhatsApp account on July 6.

Dr. Fraud said in her first WhatsApp message to the Post
that she “ha[d] therapy notes talking about” the incident when she contacted the Post
’stipline. She testified that she had reviewed her therapy notes before contacting the Post to determine whether the mentioned anything about the alleged incident, but could not remember if she had a copy of those notes, as she said in her WhatsApp message, or merely reviewed them in her therapist’s office.

Dr. Ford refused to provide anyof her therapy notes to the Committee, and continues to refuse!

There’s plenty more in Mitchell’s report (link below) regarding the holes in her allegations and testimony. And her former boyfriend has come forward and exposed more of her lies, an example of which is her familiarity and experience with polygraphs.

Only someone who is utterly desperate to believe her would find her ‘credible’ in any way.

I suggest you read Mitchell’s report!

Mitchell Memo | Dianne Feinstein | Witness

My post is all messed up. Forkup, please read the report:
Mitchell Memo | Dianne Feinstein | Witness

 

[forkup]

People make decisions on feelings all the time. You felt that Trump would be a better President then Clinton. You feel that Ford is lying. Maybe you even feel that God exist. Point is in a lot of decisions in life feeling is often the only thing to go by.

Decisions based on "feelings" are for the weak. You reveal another weakness, thinking because you do and see things a certain way you think that everyone else does it too. What makes you think Rump is any different that Obambi? Why do you think Kissinger visited Rump in the White House? Why do you think Rump is spending like a drunken sailor? Why do you think Rump is provoking both Russia and China right now? Why do you think Rump just threatened to bomb Pooties Missile Sites in Syria? You choose to live in the paradigm that has been rammed down your throat, I don't.

You only make rational decisions? How do you eat? Do you go by nutritional value? Do you drink? If you do that's not very rational. Do you believe in God? Do you have kids? If you do what was the rational? For the record. I'm not religious, I drink moderately, I don't smoke and I consider myself a pretty rational human being. Rationally speaking though it's insane to claim that I don't make decisions based on feelings all the time.

LOL, context is your friend unless you don't know how to apply it. Try and leave it in the context of the conversation. You are very clearly not suited for this.

Context? What is irrational of not wanting a guy on the supreme court who is credibly accused of sexual assault. What isn't rational about not wanting a judge who literally said he will not judge impartial? What is not rational about picking the side of an alleged victim of sexual assault over that of the alleged perpetrator? You don't have any better rational then I do for believing Kavanaugh and hide behind innocent until proven guilty when it is simply a matter of whom do you believe in this case.

You ain't my first rodeo kid. Deflection NEVER works on me.
Leave my remark in the context of the discussion going on around it. Emotionally you are quite stunted son, whom I believe is immaterial, what you can or can't prove is the basis of any decision. Well for any rational person that is.

Here you go again. Proof is not the standard you use for EVERY decision. You say I draw what you said out of context but you keep on saying the same demonstrably false thing. What you can prove, most of the time is immaterial to your decision making process. Most things in life are judgement calls based on what you FEEL is true. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous. You wouldn't be able to make decisions at all most of time otherwise.

 

[forkup]

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

What about you don’t get to destroy man’s reputation, career and life on the baisis of cos i said so dont you get?

The onus of proof is not on the accused, and certainly not when their are so few details provided by the accuser that you are prevented from even providing an alibi.

Now that you persist in this stupidity, I hope this happens to you, then you’ll see how quickly clarity depends on that muddled cucked mind of yours.

Your onus of proof to call her a liar is on you. Yet you have not provided it either. Why does that not apply to you?

Why you apply a different standard to Tilly than you do Ford? Tilly is FAR more credible than you.

I have not once claimed I know Kavanaugh did it. I even said that I don't think he should be jailed because the standard of proof for that has not been met. Tilly did claim Ford was a fraud. My standard of proof for claims has been consistent. Her's hasn't been.

Sorry no, you choose the believe Ford is telling the truth. You CHOOSE to believe Tilly isn't. This is what emotions do for you, they reveal your biases and inconsistencies.

No I choose to find Ford credible. And I KNOW Tilly's certainty she isn't is misplaced. That's the basis of my assertions. That is what a rational person in reality does. He or she recognizes, that what he thinks and what he knows are not always the same thing. And tries to make the best possible decisions on incomplete information.

 

[forkup]

-Actually 1 of those 65 woman said she was hurt and embarrassed by what Kavanaugh wrote about her in the yearbook Renata was her name. As to the 64 others. If I try really hard I think I can come up with 65 woman I knew in high school I didn't try to rape and even will speak well of me. I will even assume the same for you. Neither is his support universal. Is Brett Kavanaugh’s High School Ditching Him? Nearly 100 Alumni Sign Petition Against the Supreme Court Nominee.
-As to my analogy. It would also be just an instance of a victim speaking up, ONLY to deny this fictitious coach a position so why is it a bad analogy?
-As to the background check. Do you think the FBI speaks to everybody you have ever met when they perform a background check, or seven in this case? I sure as hell don't.

People like you pick and choose based on what you "feel". Sorry but that isn't how things work. I don't make decisions based on feeling, only facts. 7 background checks and nothing but that isn't convenient so you discount it.
Emotions and feelings are the stuff of the weak in these matters, sorry.

People make decisions on feelings all the time. You felt that Trump would be a better President then Clinton. You feel that Ford is lying. Maybe you even feel that God exist. Point is in a lot of decisions in life feeling is often the only thing to go by.

Decisions based on "feelings" are for the weak. You reveal another weakness, thinking because you do and see things a certain way you think that everyone else does it too. What makes you think Rump is any different that Obambi? Why do you think Kissinger visited Rump in the White House? Why do you think Rump is spending like a drunken sailor? Why do you think Rump is provoking both Russia and China right now? Why do you think Rump just threatened to bomb Pooties Missile Sites in Syria? You choose to live in the paradigm that has been rammed down your throat, I don't.

You only make rational decisions? How do you eat? Do you go by nutritional value? Do you drink? If you do that's not very rational. Do you believe in God? Do you have kids? If you do what was the rational? For the record. I'm not religious, I drink moderately, I don't smoke and I consider myself a pretty rational human being. Rationally speaking though it's insane to claim that I don't make decisions based on feelings all the time.

Your posting history in this forum indicates you are far, far, far from rational.

Bripat, you talking about my posting history on this forum is hilarious. You are besides that other asshole Joe what's his face the person that I think is the most quoted in footnotes of saying insane stuff.

 

[forkup]

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

What about you don’t get to destroy man’s reputation, career and life on the baisis of cos i said so dont you get?

The onus of proof is not on the accused, and certainly not when their are so few details provided by the accuser that you are prevented from even providing an alibi.

Now that you persist in this stupidity, I hope this happens to you, then you’ll see how quickly clarity depends on that muddled cucked mind of yours.

Your onus of proof to call her a liar is on you. Yet you have not provided it either. Why does that not apply to you?

For the umpteenth time, here are just a few reasons I do not believe her and why I could not support a man’s good name and career being ruined!

Fraud has repeatedly changed the few details she provided in her story

Her witnesses, even friends, not only do not corroborate her story, but her friend even states she has never even met the accused

Her friend was then pressurised to issue another statement to say she believed Fraud anyway

Fraud lied about being unable to fly

Fraud lied about the reason and the timing of installing an additional door

Fraud stated she did not name Kav in her 2012 marriage therapy notes, nor in her 2013 individual therapy notes.

But Frauds husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.


Fraud allegedly does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.

She also, allegedly, does not remember how she got to the party

She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.

She does not remember how she got from the party back home.

Dr Fraud, for the first time - during testimony- alleged that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
But, conveniently (again) she does not remember who that was, and no one has come forward as the driver.

She remembers none of these important details but does remember with great clarity the number of beers she had. (Lol).

Items from Mitchell’s report:

All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”

Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.

Dr. Fraud has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.

According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.


Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.

According to the Washington Post ’s account of her therapy notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted.

She told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom.

In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the party.

In her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come forward.

Dr. Fraud listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth as a “bystander” in her statement to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post, although she testified that it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyths.

Smyth’s. Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.

Dr. Fraud struggled to remember her interactions with the
Washington Post
.

She allegedly could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter.

She does not remember whether she showed the Postreporter
thetherapist’s notes or her own summary of those notes. The
Washington Post article said that “portions” of her “therapist’s notes” were “provided by Ford and reviewed by” the Post.

.But in her testimony, Dr. Ford could not recall whether she summarized the notes for the reporter or showed her the actual records.

She does not remember if she actually had a copy of the notes when she texted the Washington Post WhatsApp account on July 6.

Dr. Fraud said in her first WhatsApp message to the Post
that she “ha[d] therapy notes talking about” the incident when she contacted the Post
’stipline. She testified that she had reviewed her therapy notes before contacting the Post to determine whether the mentioned anything about the alleged incident, but could not remember if she had a copy of those notes, as she said in her WhatsApp message, or merely reviewed them in her therapist’s office.

Dr. Ford refused to provide anyof her therapy notes to the Committee, and continues to refuse!

There’s plenty more in Mitchell’s report (link below) regarding the holes in her allegations and testimony. And her former boyfriend has come forward and exposed more of her lies, an example of which is her familiarity and experience with polygraphs.

Only someone who is utterly desperate to believe her would find her ‘credible’ in any way.

I suggest you read Mitchell’s report!

Mitchell Memo | Dianne Feinstein | Witness

My post is all messed up. Forkup, please read the report:
Mitchell Memo | Dianne Feinstein | Witness

-I read the report. First there are a couple of things I find interesting. "A Senate confirmation hearing is not a trial, especially not a prosecution." So she admittedly says that the standard of prove to asses these allegations is NOT that of a court of law. Furthermore the statement that Grassley put out on his motivation to hold the hearing doesn't hold up well to what in reality happened. Kavanaugh and the GOP very obviously blew this "taking politics out of it" argument out of the water. To the point to making her a bystander when they saw that Kavanaugh was having trouble answering questions posed by the Democratic committee members.
- The entire report is trying to establish inconsistencies in her account. At the same time Mitchell acknowledges that inconsistencies are common in these kinds of cases. She also states as inconsistencies several times stuff that Ford failed to answer. Considering the format of the hearing that is simply a dishonest argument.
-I also want to point out that Kavanaugh gave several glaring inconsistencies himself during his testimony, something I've yet to see you address.

 

[forkup]

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

As to proving her allegations, I don't have to. My standard of proof to not want him on the Supreme court is that the accusations are credible or not. If you would suggest to put him in jail that standard would be beyond reasonable doubt. It's an important distinction.

Your opinion is not the standard by which anyone's life should be destroyed. You don't him being a Constitutionalist and that's why you don't want him seated. Innuendo and unproven allegations should not derail a man's life. Well unless of curse you're a partisan hack.

Do you care that for hundreds of thousands if not millions of woman getting him on the bench is a slap in the face forcing them to relive their trauma and telling them in no uncertain terms that coming forward against powerful men doesn't pay? Since we are talking about lives being destroyed? Sorry that I don't feel sympathy for the poor little federal judge here.

What utter and complete bullshit. Putting him on the bench is not a slap in the face to women nor does it in any way force them to relive their trauma. It also doesn't deter anyone from coming forward. Liberals need to quit acting as if they speak for all women. They don't.

I never claimed to speak for all woman. I claimed to speak for a large part of them. My wife being one of them by the by.

 

[forkup]

As to proving her allegations, I don't have to. My standard of proof to not want him on the Supreme court is that the accusations are credible or not. If you would suggest to put him in jail that standard would be beyond reasonable doubt. It's an important distinction.

How can an accusation be credible when there’s nothing to back it up and even her own witnesses, including a friend, don’t corroborate any part of her story?
FFS!

Her friend actually issued a statement she believed Ford. She simply stated she couldn't remember the incident. As to why it is credible. You have to look at her testimony, asses if she comes over as believable. Hear Kavanaugh speak and do the same. At that point you have to see who you believe. Not for nothing, EVERYBODY including Trump said she was credible.

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

Actually, we do have a basis to judge that she's lying. Her story changed multiple times. The people she claimed were there said they weren't. Her ex's sworn statement that she had indeed helped someone prepare to pass a polygraph after her testimony that she hadn't. His statement that she frequently flew and after living with her for 6 years never knew about her alleged claustrophobia. The fact that the famous second door was installed 4 years earlier than she indicated and that it led to rental space. I can go on, however, you get the idea. It's called a preponderance of evidence.

And Kavanaugh lied about his drinking. He cried when talking about calendars his father who is alive by the way taught him to make. Why are calendars something to cry about? He apparently forgot the meaning of words when explaining some of the things he wrote in the yearbook. He was very amendment of wanting his name cleared. But was resistant when asked to allow the people who's job it is to do so. Etc. Etc. As to the rest. Not remembering something doesn't mean something didn't happen. An argument from ignorance. The same goes that pointing to inconsistencies proves she lied. On the one hand you guys keep on mentioning it's over 30 years ago. On the other hand you guys point to everything she can't remember as prove that she has to be lying. Seems trying to have it both ways in my opinion.

 

[bripat9643]

How can an accusation be credible when there’s nothing to back it up and even her own witnesses, including a friend, don’t corroborate any part of her story?
FFS!

Her friend actually issued a statement she believed Ford. She simply stated she couldn't remember the incident. As to why it is credible. You have to look at her testimony, asses if she comes over as believable. Hear Kavanaugh speak and do the same. At that point you have to see who you believe. Not for nothing, EVERYBODY including Trump said she was credible.

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

Actually, we do have a basis to judge that she's lying. Her story changed multiple times. The people she claimed were there said they weren't. Her ex's sworn statement that she had indeed helped someone prepare to pass a polygraph after her testimony that she hadn't. His statement that she frequently flew and after living with her for 6 years never knew about her alleged claustrophobia. The fact that the famous second door was installed 4 years earlier than she indicated and that it led to rental space. I can go on, however, you get the idea. It's called a preponderance of evidence.

And Kavanaugh lied about his drinking. He cried when talking about calendars his father who is alive by the way taught him to make. Why are calendars something to cry about? He apparently forgot the meaning of words when explaining some of the things he wrote in the yearbook. He was very amendment of wanting his name cleared. But was resistant when asked to allow the people who's job it is to do so. Etc. Etc. As to the rest. Not remembering something doesn't mean something didn't happen. An argument from ignorance. The same goes that pointing to inconsistencies proves she lied. On the one hand you guys keep on mentioning it's over 30 years ago. On the other hand you guys point to everything she can't remember as prove that she has to be lying. Seems trying to have it both ways in my opinion.

Your promoting a series of transparent lies, which makes you a douchebag.

Kavanaugh did not lie about his drinking.

What the fuck does "He was very amendment [sic] of wanting his name cleared" mean?

What he resisted was the thin Dim douchebag excuse for dragging out the witch hunt any further. Who would want that? The idea that the purpose of the FBI investigation was to clear his name couldn't be a bigger lie. The purpose was to drag out the hearing so the Dim douchebags would have more time to manufacture more dirt.

Not remembering something doesn't mean it didn't happen? And not having pictures of big foot doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Your ignorance of the facts doesn't mean they aren't facts.

Inconsistencies don't prove she lied? Then what would prove she lied? With rules of evidence like that, how could Kavanaugh possibly clear his name?

You have to be a fucking moron not to see the illogic in what you posted.

 

[Tilly]

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

What about you don’t get to destroy man’s reputation, career and life on the baisis of cos i said so dont you get?

The onus of proof is not on the accused, and certainly not when their are so few details provided by the accuser that you are prevented from even providing an alibi.

Now that you persist in this stupidity, I hope this happens to you, then you’ll see how quickly clarity depends on that muddled cucked mind of yours.

Your onus of proof to call her a liar is on you. Yet you have not provided it either. Why does that not apply to you?

For the umpteenth time, here are just a few reasons I do not believe her and why I could not support a man’s good name and career being ruined!

Fraud has repeatedly changed the few details she provided in her story

Her witnesses, even friends, not only do not corroborate her story, but her friend even states she has never even met the accused

Her friend was then pressurised to issue another statement to say she believed Fraud anyway

Fraud lied about being unable to fly

Fraud lied about the reason and the timing of installing an additional door

Fraud stated she did not name Kav in her 2012 marriage therapy notes, nor in her 2013 individual therapy notes.

But Frauds husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.


Fraud allegedly does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.

She also, allegedly, does not remember how she got to the party

She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.

She does not remember how she got from the party back home.

Dr Fraud, for the first time - during testimony- alleged that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
But, conveniently (again) she does not remember who that was, and no one has come forward as the driver.

She remembers none of these important details but does remember with great clarity the number of beers she had. (Lol).

Items from Mitchell’s report:

All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”

Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.

Dr. Fraud has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.

According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.


Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.

According to the Washington Post ’s account of her therapy notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted.

She told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom.

In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the party.

In her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come forward.

Dr. Fraud listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth as a “bystander” in her statement to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post, although she testified that it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyths.

Smyth’s. Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.

Dr. Fraud struggled to remember her interactions with the
Washington Post
.

She allegedly could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter.

She does not remember whether she showed the Postreporter
thetherapist’s notes or her own summary of those notes. The
Washington Post article said that “portions” of her “therapist’s notes” were “provided by Ford and reviewed by” the Post.

.But in her testimony, Dr. Ford could not recall whether she summarized the notes for the reporter or showed her the actual records.

She does not remember if she actually had a copy of the notes when she texted the Washington Post WhatsApp account on July 6.

Dr. Fraud said in her first WhatsApp message to the Post
that she “ha[d] therapy notes talking about” the incident when she contacted the Post
’stipline. She testified that she had reviewed her therapy notes before contacting the Post to determine whether the mentioned anything about the alleged incident, but could not remember if she had a copy of those notes, as she said in her WhatsApp message, or merely reviewed them in her therapist’s office.

Dr. Ford refused to provide anyof her therapy notes to the Committee, and continues to refuse!

There’s plenty more in Mitchell’s report (link below) regarding the holes in her allegations and testimony. And her former boyfriend has come forward and exposed more of her lies, an example of which is her familiarity and experience with polygraphs.

Only someone who is utterly desperate to believe her would find her ‘credible’ in any way.

I suggest you read Mitchell’s report!

Mitchell Memo | Dianne Feinstein | Witness

My post is all messed up. Forkup, please read the report:
Mitchell Memo | Dianne Feinstein | Witness

-I read the report. First there are a couple of things I find interesting. "A Senate confirmation hearing is not a trial, especially not a prosecution." So she admittedly says that the standard of prove to asses these allegations is NOT that of a court of law. Furthermore the statement that Grassley put out on his motivation to hold the hearing doesn't hold up well to what in reality happened. Kavanaugh and the GOP very obviously blew this "taking politics out of it" argument out of the water. To the point to making her a bystander when they saw that Kavanaugh was having trouble answering questions posed by the Democratic committee members.
- The entire report is trying to establish inconsistencies in her account. At the same time Mitchell acknowledges that inconsistencies are common in these kinds of cases. She also states as inconsistencies several times stuff that Ford failed to answer. Considering the format of the hearing that is simply a dishonest argument.
-I also want to point out that Kavanaugh gave several glaring inconsistencies himself during his testimony, something I've yet to see you address.

The entire report is trying to establish inconsistencies in her account.

Nope. The report isn’t TRYING to find inconsistencies- it would be impossible for even the most casual observer to miss them!

And what else is clear is that you are so very desperate to believe Fraud, if she said unicorns were flying overhead whilst Kav molested her, you’d buy it hook, line and sinker.
SMH.

 

[Tilly]

No I choose to find Ford credible. And I KNOW Tilly's certainty she isn't is misplaced.

Dear God.
I hope you never do jury duty.

And don’t bother with your schtick about this not being a court of law.

If someone’s going to destroy your reputation, your career, and possibly your family in front of the entire world, you should at least have the decency to stick to one version of your story and provide some EVIDENCE.

 

[forkup]

What about you don’t get to destroy man’s reputation, career and life on the baisis of cos i said so dont you get?

The onus of proof is not on the accused, and certainly not when their are so few details provided by the accuser that you are prevented from even providing an alibi.

Now that you persist in this stupidity, I hope this happens to you, then you’ll see how quickly clarity depends on that muddled cucked mind of yours.

Your onus of proof to call her a liar is on you. Yet you have not provided it either. Why does that not apply to you?

For the umpteenth time, here are just a few reasons I do not believe her and why I could not support a man’s good name and career being ruined!

Fraud has repeatedly changed the few details she provided in her story

Her witnesses, even friends, not only do not corroborate her story, but her friend even states she has never even met the accused

Her friend was then pressurised to issue another statement to say she believed Fraud anyway

Fraud lied about being unable to fly

Fraud lied about the reason and the timing of installing an additional door

Fraud stated she did not name Kav in her 2012 marriage therapy notes, nor in her 2013 individual therapy notes.

But Frauds husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.


Fraud allegedly does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.

She also, allegedly, does not remember how she got to the party

She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.

She does not remember how she got from the party back home.

Dr Fraud, for the first time - during testimony- alleged that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
But, conveniently (again) she does not remember who that was, and no one has come forward as the driver.

She remembers none of these important details but does remember with great clarity the number of beers she had. (Lol).

Items from Mitchell’s report:

All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”

Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.

Dr. Fraud has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.

According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.


Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.

According to the Washington Post ’s account of her therapy notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted.

She told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom.

In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the party.

In her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come forward.

Dr. Fraud listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth as a “bystander” in her statement to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post, although she testified that it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyths.

Smyth’s. Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.

Dr. Fraud struggled to remember her interactions with the
Washington Post
.

She allegedly could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter.

She does not remember whether she showed the Postreporter
thetherapist’s notes or her own summary of those notes. The
Washington Post article said that “portions” of her “therapist’s notes” were “provided by Ford and reviewed by” the Post.

.But in her testimony, Dr. Ford could not recall whether she summarized the notes for the reporter or showed her the actual records.

She does not remember if she actually had a copy of the notes when she texted the Washington Post WhatsApp account on July 6.

Dr. Fraud said in her first WhatsApp message to the Post
that she “ha[d] therapy notes talking about” the incident when she contacted the Post
’stipline. She testified that she had reviewed her therapy notes before contacting the Post to determine whether the mentioned anything about the alleged incident, but could not remember if she had a copy of those notes, as she said in her WhatsApp message, or merely reviewed them in her therapist’s office.

Dr. Ford refused to provide anyof her therapy notes to the Committee, and continues to refuse!

There’s plenty more in Mitchell’s report (link below) regarding the holes in her allegations and testimony. And her former boyfriend has come forward and exposed more of her lies, an example of which is her familiarity and experience with polygraphs.

Only someone who is utterly desperate to believe her would find her ‘credible’ in any way.

I suggest you read Mitchell’s report!

Mitchell Memo | Dianne Feinstein | Witness

My post is all messed up. Forkup, please read the report:
Mitchell Memo | Dianne Feinstein | Witness

-I read the report. First there are a couple of things I find interesting. "A Senate confirmation hearing is not a trial, especially not a prosecution." So she admittedly says that the standard of prove to asses these allegations is NOT that of a court of law. Furthermore the statement that Grassley put out on his motivation to hold the hearing doesn't hold up well to what in reality happened. Kavanaugh and the GOP very obviously blew this "taking politics out of it" argument out of the water. To the point to making her a bystander when they saw that Kavanaugh was having trouble answering questions posed by the Democratic committee members.
- The entire report is trying to establish inconsistencies in her account. At the same time Mitchell acknowledges that inconsistencies are common in these kinds of cases. She also states as inconsistencies several times stuff that Ford failed to answer. Considering the format of the hearing that is simply a dishonest argument.
-I also want to point out that Kavanaugh gave several glaring inconsistencies himself during his testimony, something I've yet to see you address.

The entire report is trying to establish inconsistencies in her account.

Nope. The report isn’t TRYING to find inconsistencies- it would be impossible for even the most casual observer to miss them!

And what else is clear is that you are so very desperate to believe Fraud, if she said unicorns were flying overhead whilst Kav molested her, you’d buy it hook, line and sinker.
SMH.

There are inconsistencies in her account. There are inconsistencies in Kavanaugh's testimony. Neither is conclusive to KNOW who's telling the truth. The difference being I have no problem acknowledging that. You do.

 

[Tilly]

He or she recognizes, that what he thinks and what he knows are not always the same thing.

And you are NOT recognising that.

 

[Tilly]

Her friend actually issued a statement she believed Ford. She simply stated she couldn't remember the incident. As to why it is credible. You have to look at her testimony, asses if she comes over as believable. Hear Kavanaugh speak and do the same. At that point you have to see who you believe. Not for nothing, EVERYBODY including Trump said she was credible.

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

Actually, we do have a basis to judge that she's lying. Her story changed multiple times. The people she claimed were there said they weren't. Her ex's sworn statement that she had indeed helped someone prepare to pass a polygraph after her testimony that she hadn't. His statement that she frequently flew and after living with her for 6 years never knew about her alleged claustrophobia. The fact that the famous second door was installed 4 years earlier than she indicated and that it led to rental space. I can go on, however, you get the idea. It's called a preponderance of evidence.

And Kavanaugh lied about his drinking. He cried when talking about calendars his father who is alive by the way taught him to make. Why are calendars something to cry about? He apparently forgot the meaning of words when explaining some of the things he wrote in the yearbook. He was very amendment of wanting his name cleared. But was resistant when asked to allow the people who's job it is to do so. Etc. Etc. As to the rest. Not remembering something doesn't mean something didn't happen. An argument from ignorance. The same goes that pointing to inconsistencies proves she lied. On the one hand you guys keep on mentioning it's over 30 years ago. On the other hand you guys point to everything she can't remember as prove that she has to be lying. Seems trying to have it both ways in my opinion.

Your promoting a series of transparent lies, which makes you a douchebag.

Kavanaugh did not lie about his drinking.

What the fuck does "He was very amendment [sic] of wanting his name cleared" mean?

What he resisted was the thin Dim douchebag excuse for dragging out the with trial any further. Who would want that? The idea that the purpose of the FBI investigation was to clear his name couldn't be a bigger lie. The purpose was to drag out the hearing so the Dim douchebags would have more time to manufacture more dirt.

Not remembering something doesn't mean it didn't happen? And not having pictures of big foot doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Your ignorance of the facts doesn't mean they aren't facts.

Inconsistencies don't prove she lied? Then what would prove she lied? With rules of evidence like that, how could Kavanaugh possibly clear his name?

You have to be a fucking moron not to see the illogic in what you posted.

just unbelievable.
Forkup is either gaslighting or is an idiot.

 

[forkup]

Her friend actually issued a statement she believed Ford. She simply stated she couldn't remember the incident. As to why it is credible. You have to look at her testimony, asses if she comes over as believable. Hear Kavanaugh speak and do the same. At that point you have to see who you believe. Not for nothing, EVERYBODY including Trump said she was credible.

Her friend said she was pressurised into adding to her original statement which was that she has no recollection of any such party or incident and had never met Kav.

Frauds testimony was not in the least believable.

Politicians saying she is credible is politicians being diplomatic.
They would be torn limb from limb by the screeching banshees otherwise.
Baseless accusations do not get to destroy a man’s rep and future.

Innocent until proven guilty.

It’s really simple and I believe you are pretending not to get it, unless you are stupid or so partisan you can’t think straight.

Maybe it will happen to you one day and then you’ll get a clearer understanding of why presumption of innocence is so important, particularly when your accuser provides so few details you have no hope of providing an alibi, and you can’t prove a negative.

I'm not pretending I don't get innocent until proven guilty. I'm saying it's a concept that does NOT apply when doing a job interview. Furthermore I know you guys get that since you need no actual conclusive evidence to call her a fraud. To you she is GUILTY of lying. You have just as little bases to make that assessment as I do.

Actually, we do have a basis to judge that she's lying. Her story changed multiple times. The people she claimed were there said they weren't. Her ex's sworn statement that she had indeed helped someone prepare to pass a polygraph after her testimony that she hadn't. His statement that she frequently flew and after living with her for 6 years never knew about her alleged claustrophobia. The fact that the famous second door was installed 4 years earlier than she indicated and that it led to rental space. I can go on, however, you get the idea. It's called a preponderance of evidence.

And Kavanaugh lied about his drinking. He cried when talking about calendars his father who is alive by the way taught him to make. Why are calendars something to cry about? He apparently forgot the meaning of words when explaining some of the things he wrote in the yearbook. He was very amendment of wanting his name cleared. But was resistant when asked to allow the people who's job it is to do so. Etc. Etc. As to the rest. Not remembering something doesn't mean something didn't happen. An argument from ignorance. The same goes that pointing to inconsistencies proves she lied. On the one hand you guys keep on mentioning it's over 30 years ago. On the other hand you guys point to everything she can't remember as prove that she has to be lying. Seems trying to have it both ways in my opinion.

Your promoting a series of transparent lies, which makes you a douchebag.

Kavanaugh did not lie about his drinking.

What the fuck does "He was very amendment [sic] of wanting his name cleared" mean?

What he resisted was the thin Dim douchebag excuse for dragging out the with trial any further. Who would want that? The idea that the purpose of the FBI investigation was to clear his name couldn't be a bigger lie. The purpose was to drag out the hearing so the Dim douchebags would have more time to manufacture more dirt.

Not remembering something doesn't mean it didn't happen? And not having pictures of big foot doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Your ignorance of the facts doesn't mean they aren't facts.

Inconsistencies don't prove she lied? Then what would prove she lied? With rules of evidence like that, how could Kavanaugh possibly clear his name?

You have to be a fucking moron not to see the illogic in what you posted.

No I choose to find Ford credible. And I KNOW Tilly's certainty she isn't is misplaced.

Dear God.
I hope you never do jury duty.

And don’t bother with your schtick about this not being a court of law.
If someone’s going to destroy your reputation, your career, and possibly your family in front of the entire world, you should at least have the decency to stick to one version of your story and provide some EVIDENCE.

Seems to me I would be a better juror then you. See I know the difference between what I believe and what I know. You conflate them.