Christine Ford is psychic. Which means she's a fraud. Which means Obama was born in Kenya

[hadit]

Groper Trump nominated a fellow groper. Why is anyone surprised?

The only surprise (not really) is that you completely and totally take her at her word without evidence. How gullible can someone be?

 

[g5000]

Groper Trump nominated a fellow groper. Why is anyone surprised?

The only surprise (not really) is that you completely and totally take her at her word without evidence. How gullible can someone be?

Wait. Trump supporters are whining about people who are gullible and bleev a liar!?!?

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!


Oh, man. That's priceless.

 

[hadit]

Groper Trump nominated a fellow groper. Why is anyone surprised?

The only surprise (not really) is that you completely and totally take her at her word without evidence. How gullible can someone be?

Wait. Trump supporters are whining about people who are gullible and bleev a liar!?!?

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!


Oh, man. That's priceless.

Does making up stuff like that make your gullibility any less egregious?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The only woman I claimed to be a soulless bitch and a whore is you.

As well....

 

[g5000]

Groper Trump nominated a fellow groper. Why is anyone surprised?

The only surprise (not really) is that you completely and totally take her at her word without evidence. How gullible can someone be?

Wait. Trump supporters are whining about people who are gullible and bleev a liar!?!?

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!


Oh, man. That's priceless.

Does making up stuff like that make your gullibility any less egregious?

You poor thing. You've been triggered.

Mission accomplished.

Karma's a bitch. It's a whole new world with Trump in the picture.

 

[easyt65]

Some of you Trumptards have lost your minds entirely - Sad

Aside from the insult personal attack, explain further.

My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.

If you followed the conversation above,

Snowflake: 'She has a witness.'
Counterpoint: 'He said it never happened.'

Snowflake Defense: 'Yeah, but he can't be trusted because he was drunk and because of the book he wrote.'
Response: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.'

The snowflake in the discussion admitted that her own 'witness' can not be trusted because he was supposedly drunk - like she was (so can SHE be trusted?) and because he wrote the book)....which logically means her 'witness' is not a 'good' witness because his memory can not be trusted due to intoxication (LIKE HERS?) and because of the book he wrote.......

So what do you not understand? Please explain your ridiculous comment......

 

[hadit]

Groper Trump nominated a fellow groper. Why is anyone surprised?

The only surprise (not really) is that you completely and totally take her at her word without evidence. How gullible can someone be?

Wait. Trump supporters are whining about people who are gullible and bleev a liar!?!?

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!


Oh, man. That's priceless.

Does making up stuff like that make your gullibility any less egregious?

You poor thing. You've been triggered.

Mission accomplished.

Karma's a bitch. It's a whole new world with Trump in the picture.

Sure is. We might actually see some Republicans who understand what they are up against and who don't pretend the democrats are not out to win at all costs.

But hey, if it makes you feel better at night to believe the big bad scary Kavenaugh was a sexual predator just ONCE as a teenager (unlike other predators like Bubba Clinton who leave a life long trail of incidents behind them), be my guest. Can't have you losing sleep over a Republican dominated court now.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.

Then again, she never said he would support her claim. In fact, she says that he was basically a co-perpetrator. So him denying it doesn't mean anything.

Does that mean his denial is evidence in her favor? No. But it is not evidence against her position, either. Some might suggest that, seeing as she likely would have expected him to deny her claims, the move on her part slightly favors her sincerity. Which I'd agree with--it slightly supports her credibility because there was nothing but downside to identify him. But I think people are getting too wrapped up in the details when they should be considering his alleged involvement in the scope of a bigger picture.

 

[jc456]

I bet you don't know that even John McCain needed to supply his birth certificate. I bet you don't know that do you? I can tell you why once you commit to the question, did you know?

 

[DrLove]

Some of you Trumptards have lost your minds entirely - Sad

Aside from the insult personal attack, explain further.

My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.

If you followed the conversation above,

Snowflake: 'She has a witness.'
Counterpoint: 'He said it never happened.'

Snowflake Defense: 'Yeah, but he can't be trusted because he was drunk and because of the book he wrote.'
Response: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.'

The snowflake in the discussion admitted that her own 'witness' can not be trusted because he was supposedly drunk - like she was (so can SHE be trusted?) and because he wrote the book)....which logically means her 'witness' is not a 'good' witness because his memory can not be trusted due to intoxication (LIKE HERS?) and because of the book he wrote.......

So what do you not understand? Please explain your ridiculous comment......

You don't know that Dr Ford was drunk or even drinking, and are now flailing and spinning like a top.
Hurry and get back to bed before ya fall

 

[Pop23]

The only woman I claimed to be a soulless bitch and a whore is you.

As well....

As well as being dishonest. Thanks for the reminder

 

[Pop23]

Some of you Trumptards have lost your minds entirely - Sad

Aside from the insult personal attack, explain further.

My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.

If you followed the conversation above,

Snowflake: 'She has a witness.'
Counterpoint: 'He said it never happened.'

Snowflake Defense: 'Yeah, but he can't be trusted because he was drunk and because of the book he wrote.'
Response: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.'

The snowflake in the discussion admitted that her own 'witness' can not be trusted because he was supposedly drunk - like she was (so can SHE be trusted?) and because he wrote the book)....which logically means her 'witness' is not a 'good' witness because his memory can not be trusted due to intoxication (LIKE HERS?) and because of the book he wrote.......

So what do you not understand? Please explain your ridiculous comment......

You don't know that Dr Ford was drunk or even drinking, and are now flailing and spinning like a top.
Hurry and get back to bed before ya fall

There is no evidence that she was either drinking nor drunk, nor even there.

Thanks

 

[easyt65]

Some of you Trumptards have lost your minds entirely - Sad

Aside from the insult personal attack, explain further.

My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.

If you followed the conversation above,

Snowflake: 'She has a witness.'
Counterpoint: 'He said it never happened.'

Snowflake Defense: 'Yeah, but he can't be trusted because he was drunk and because of the book he wrote.'
Response: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.'

The snowflake in the discussion admitted that her own 'witness' can not be trusted because he was supposedly drunk - like she was (so can SHE be trusted?) and because he wrote the book)....which logically means her 'witness' is not a 'good' witness because his memory can not be trusted due to intoxication (LIKE HERS?) and because of the book he wrote.......

So what do you not understand? Please explain your ridiculous comment......

You don't know that Dr Ford was drunk or even drinking, and are now flailing and spinning like a top.
Hurry and get back to bed before ya fall

There is no evidence that she was either drinking nor drunk, nor even there.

Thanks

So Feinstein just torpedoed a man's entire life when the accuser may not have even been at the party she claims to have attended where this happened?

I guess when you're a democrat, as they continue to prove over and over again, 'We don't need no steenking evidence'.

 

[Pop23]

Some of you Trumptards have lost your minds entirely - Sad

Aside from the insult personal attack, explain further.

My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.

If you followed the conversation above,

Snowflake: 'She has a witness.'
Counterpoint: 'He said it never happened.'

Snowflake Defense: 'Yeah, but he can't be trusted because he was drunk and because of the book he wrote.'
Response: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.'

The snowflake in the discussion admitted that her own 'witness' can not be trusted because he was supposedly drunk - like she was (so can SHE be trusted?) and because he wrote the book)....which logically means her 'witness' is not a 'good' witness because his memory can not be trusted due to intoxication (LIKE HERS?) and because of the book he wrote.......

So what do you not understand? Please explain your ridiculous comment......

You don't know that Dr Ford was drunk or even drinking, and are now flailing and spinning like a top.
Hurry and get back to bed before ya fall

There is no evidence that she was either drinking nor drunk, nor even there.

Thanks

So Feinstein just torpedoed a man's entire life when the accuser may not have even been at the party she claims to have attended where this happened?

I guess when you're a democrat, as they continue to prove over and over again, 'We don't need no steenking evidence'.

As a former Democrat I am ashamed of a once great party. Quit the party when I saw it being taken over by children. This is just the latest example of the childish behavior that drove me, and many others away.

 

[bripat9643]

From the sound of things, they were the ones who showed up at a girl party. But you're essentially right. Teenage girls who don't want to be sexually assaulted shouldn't go out in public.

Political activists who want to be believed when they falsely accuse someone of 'almost rape' should not name someone as an eye witness who says it never happened.

Another ^ one who doesn't get it a self-admitted "drooling blackout drunk" who wrote a book called Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk is NOT going to be a good witness.
You're posts most often make me face-palm .. this one was no exception!

It's unfortunate that she named him as a witness then, isn't it? Apparently, "bad witness" is your euphemism meaning a witness who doesn't support your case.

She did not at any time suggest that he would be a "good witness". She clearly stated that both boys were "stumbling drunk".

She said he was a witness. End of story, turd.

If they were so drunk, then it's hard to believe that she couldn't easily outmaneuver them.

 

[easyt65]

So Feinstein just torpedoed a man's entire life when the accuser may not have even been at the party she claims to have attended where this happened?

I guess when you're a democrat, as they continue to prove over and over again, 'We don't need no steenking evidence'.

Soooooo.......

If someone wrote a letter to Mitch McConnell identifying a woman who claimed she was at a drunken, unruly DC party and witnessed Diane Feinstein performing an un-natural sexual act on the live version of the Democratic Party's mascot while snorting cocaine off the backside of a small 6yo Venezuelan illegal child that Feinstein had bragged she purchased from a Human trafficker, it would be perfectly 'OK' with Democrats / snowflakes for R-McConnell to very publicly announce this information - without releasing the names of the eye witness, 'beast of burden', or the small Venezuelan child AND before ever obtaining any actual evidence that this happened - and declare he was turning this over to the FBI to investigate?

 

[DrLove]

Some of you Trumptards have lost your minds entirely - Sad

Aside from the insult personal attack, explain further.

My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.

If you followed the conversation above,

Snowflake: 'She has a witness.'
Counterpoint: 'He said it never happened.'

Snowflake Defense: 'Yeah, but he can't be trusted because he was drunk and because of the book he wrote.'
Response: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.'

The snowflake in the discussion admitted that her own 'witness' can not be trusted because he was supposedly drunk - like she was (so can SHE be trusted?) and because he wrote the book)....which logically means her 'witness' is not a 'good' witness because his memory can not be trusted due to intoxication (LIKE HERS?) and because of the book he wrote.......

So what do you not understand? Please explain your ridiculous comment......

You don't know that Dr Ford was drunk or even drinking, and are now flailing and spinning like a top.
Hurry and get back to bed before ya fall

There is no evidence that she was either drinking nor drunk, nor even there.

Thanks

So Feinstein just torpedoed a man's entire life when the accuser may not have even been at the party she claims to have attended where this happened?

I guess when you're a democrat, as they continue to prove over and over again, 'We don't need no steenking evidence'.

Feinstein has nothing to do with it. Dr Ford's name was leaked by a staffer.

 

[Pop23]

Some of you Trumptards have lost your minds entirely - Sad

Aside from the insult personal attack, explain further.

My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.

If you followed the conversation above,

Snowflake: 'She has a witness.'
Counterpoint: 'He said it never happened.'

Snowflake Defense: 'Yeah, but he can't be trusted because he was drunk and because of the book he wrote.'
Response: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.'

The snowflake in the discussion admitted that her own 'witness' can not be trusted because he was supposedly drunk - like she was (so can SHE be trusted?) and because he wrote the book)....which logically means her 'witness' is not a 'good' witness because his memory can not be trusted due to intoxication (LIKE HERS?) and because of the book he wrote.......

So what do you not understand? Please explain your ridiculous comment......

You don't know that Dr Ford was drunk or even drinking, and are now flailing and spinning like a top.
Hurry and get back to bed before ya fall

There is no evidence that she was either drinking nor drunk, nor even there.

Thanks

So Feinstein just torpedoed a man's entire life when the accuser may not have even been at the party she claims to have attended where this happened?

I guess when you're a democrat, as they continue to prove over and over again, 'We don't need no steenking evidence'.

Feinstein has nothing to do with it. Dr Ford's name was leaked by a staffer.

who?

 

[easyt65]

Feinstein has nothing to do with it. Dr Ford's name was leaked by a staffer.

Feinstein has EVERYTHING to do with it. SHE is the one who went extremely public with a rumor - even Ford said she was NOT ready for this to get out.

 

[DrLove]

Aside from the insult personal attack, explain further.

My statement was: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.

If you followed the conversation above,

Snowflake: 'She has a witness.'
Counterpoint: 'He said it never happened.'

Snowflake Defense: 'Yeah, but he can't be trusted because he was drunk and because of the book he wrote.'
Response: Her 'witness' is, in the end, NOT a 'good' witness' based on the fact that he does not support her claim.'

The snowflake in the discussion admitted that her own 'witness' can not be trusted because he was supposedly drunk - like she was (so can SHE be trusted?) and because he wrote the book)....which logically means her 'witness' is not a 'good' witness because his memory can not be trusted due to intoxication (LIKE HERS?) and because of the book he wrote.......

So what do you not understand? Please explain your ridiculous comment......

You don't know that Dr Ford was drunk or even drinking, and are now flailing and spinning like a top.
Hurry and get back to bed before ya fall

There is no evidence that she was either drinking nor drunk, nor even there.

Thanks

So Feinstein just torpedoed a man's entire life when the accuser may not have even been at the party she claims to have attended where this happened?

I guess when you're a democrat, as they continue to prove over and over again, 'We don't need no steenking evidence'.

Feinstein has nothing to do with it. Dr Ford's name was leaked by a staffer.

who?

Name not revealed - but guaranteed he or she is now an EX staffer