Do you Believe Kavanaugh's Rape Accuser?

[Tilly]

Dums played the white male racist/sexist card so Reps had her ask the questions.

We can readily agree Dums have misplayed this from the start. It will cost them the midterms.

What happens if you’re wrong and the Dems win the midterms and take over the house? Will you change your tune or make excuses?

Then they can probably expect the same disgusting treatment.

That tit for tat attitude has been going on for years. The Dems feel justified in their obstruction because of what the republicans did to Garland. How does it ever stop?

Well the Dems just upped the anti, bigly.
Pretty stupid and extremely nasty, imho.

If the Dems were part of a conspiracy to fabricate stories to block a judge they should all be impeached and along with accusers thrown in jail. If that’s really what you think is happening then you should be pushing the FBI to investigate the shit out of this thing and expose the corruption. Something of this scale shouldn’t be too difficult to track down don’t you think?

I can’t push the FBI to do anything

 

[Tilly]

Can you provide some examples from his testimony you think she should evaluate for ‘facts’ and ‘credibility’?
And you do know why Mitchell was there, right?

Sure when he was questioned about his drinking and his yearbook he seemed to give answers that don’t pass the smell test. At best this only dampens the credibility of his word. At worst it reveals deeper seeded lies and a cover up of the very activity he is accused of when he was in school.

Kav said he loved beer then, and that he loves beer now.
Even when the Dems were trying their hardest to paint him as an alcoholic he still admitted he sometimes drank too much and would need to sleep it off.

None of what he said about drinking seems suspicious to me, so you’ll have to tell me what conclusions you think she could/should fairly draw and publish about it and how it can reasonably and fairly be tied to an accusation he hasn’t even been proven to be physically connected to.

And none of his testimony points to him sexually assaulting anyone, let alone Blasey Fraud with whom he still hasn’t even been placed in the same room, building or street, which is what Mitchell was their to find out.

Drinking too much and even referencing sex (if that’s what he did) does not in any way make him a sexual assaulter - it doesn’t help Frauds case at all, in any way.

There is a HUGE difference between noting Fraud said she could fly but there is evidence she flies frequently; that she not only has memory lapses from 36 years ago, but also apparently has them regarding events that happened a few weeks ago, and that none of the witnesses she named corroborate her story, to deciding I just don’t believe the name of Kavs drinking game!

Blasey Frauds online stuff showed her to be a hard drinking party girl. All that stuff was scrubbed. If you want trial by drinking, partying behaviour and yearbooks, perhaps hers need to be subpoenaed and examined too - in the name of fairness.

But still, you tell me how a much admired experienced prosecutor such as Mitchell would word that and work again.

Well the line of questioning and areas of concern are somewhat obvious. He was asked about his drinking because there have been several witness accounts that he was a sloppy and aggressive drunk. He was asked about his year book because it referenced excessive drinking, sexual activities and even two on one sexual escapades, which match his accusers accusation. His interview with fox and testimony under oath didn’t exactly match these accounts as he painted himself as a hard working virgin who liked the occasional beer.

So it appears there are one of three scenarios happening with him. 1. He was embarrassed ashamed of his behavior as a kid and was lying about it under oath. 2. He committed the acts that he was accused of and either blacked out or is covering it up. Or 3. He was a choir boy who coincidentally had some inside jokes with his friends that unfairly paint him as a sloppy womanizing party boy. And a conspiracy between democratic activists have led to these several fabricated accusations designed to block his nomination and ruin his life.

I must say if it is number 3 then the fabricators must be some of the dumbest people in the world because I don’t see how anybody could make up such flawed stories. Hell, I’d just say he caught her one on one and assaulted her or I’d pit two of the accusers together to validate each others story. It’s been tough for me to make sense out of the fabrication narrative from a realistic standpoint when I explore SPECULATE about the details and motives of the accusation.

His accounts in no way match what he is accused of, and no, I don’t accept there are only your 3 scenarios. The fourth scenario is just as he said, he liked beer, he drank beer, sometimes he drank too much beer, and no he didn’t attempt to sexually assault Fraud or anyone else.

Any problems people are having with his testimony seem to be basically subjective regarding how you interpret his performance, or based on hearsay, NOT evidence.

The problems with Frauds testimony are not based upon her performance or subjective interpretation of her performance, but upon either actual provable lies (flying), her frequently changing testimony, and a complete lack of verifiable facts.

Kav did not present himself as a choirboy either, how many times did he have to say he did drink, he likes drink and that sometimes he drank too much???

Back to Mitchell, I don’t know if it’s in her remit to report on Kavs testimony. Whether it is or not was clearly understood and agreed to in advance by both parties.

Maybe the Dems were confident that their constant accusations of alcoholism would seal the deal?

Listen Tilly... Jesus made wine out of water and gave it to his deciples to drink. Friar Tuck was the king of beer. Just because Kav said he drinks beer he wasn’t saying anything to tarnish the reputation that he was painting for himself. Which I wouldn’t expect him too. But many people have come forward to say he was a sloppy and aggressive drunk when he was in school. He and his friends chased girls and had lewd sexual ambitions. Many things that fall close to these accusations against him. And he is throwing shade

We saw how Bush handled his past. He admitted that he made adolescent mistakes. Kav is taking a different approach that many are seeing as dishonest. Plus the fact that he was under oath in a congressional hearing makes it even worse.

And many people have come forward and said he absolutely wasn’t an aggressive or sloppy drunk in school. Neither opinion is provable.

 

[Slade3200]

Kav is taking a different approach that many are seeing as dishonest. Plus the fact that he was under oath in a congressional hearing makes it even worse.

In your opinion he’s ‘taking an approach’.
Maybe he’s simply telling the truth.

Well his truth is conflicting facts and with several other people’s truths. Did you see the letter that just came out today that he wrote to his buddies where he signed it FFFFF Bart? So much for his studdering friend story.

 

[Slade3200]

Sure when he was questioned about his drinking and his yearbook he seemed to give answers that don’t pass the smell test. At best this only dampens the credibility of his word. At worst it reveals deeper seeded lies and a cover up of the very activity he is accused of when he was in school.

Kav said he loved beer then, and that he loves beer now.
Even when the Dems were trying their hardest to paint him as an alcoholic he still admitted he sometimes drank too much and would need to sleep it off.

None of what he said about drinking seems suspicious to me, so you’ll have to tell me what conclusions you think she could/should fairly draw and publish about it and how it can reasonably and fairly be tied to an accusation he hasn’t even been proven to be physically connected to.

And none of his testimony points to him sexually assaulting anyone, let alone Blasey Fraud with whom he still hasn’t even been placed in the same room, building or street, which is what Mitchell was their to find out.

Drinking too much and even referencing sex (if that’s what he did) does not in any way make him a sexual assaulter - it doesn’t help Frauds case at all, in any way.

There is a HUGE difference between noting Fraud said she could fly but there is evidence she flies frequently; that she not only has memory lapses from 36 years ago, but also apparently has them regarding events that happened a few weeks ago, and that none of the witnesses she named corroborate her story, to deciding I just don’t believe the name of Kavs drinking game!

Blasey Frauds online stuff showed her to be a hard drinking party girl. All that stuff was scrubbed. If you want trial by drinking, partying behaviour and yearbooks, perhaps hers need to be subpoenaed and examined too - in the name of fairness.

But still, you tell me how a much admired experienced prosecutor such as Mitchell would word that and work again.

Well the line of questioning and areas of concern are somewhat obvious. He was asked about his drinking because there have been several witness accounts that he was a sloppy and aggressive drunk. He was asked about his year book because it referenced excessive drinking, sexual activities and even two on one sexual escapades, which match his accusers accusation. His interview with fox and testimony under oath didn’t exactly match these accounts as he painted himself as a hard working virgin who liked the occasional beer.

So it appears there are one of three scenarios happening with him. 1. He was embarrassed ashamed of his behavior as a kid and was lying about it under oath. 2. He committed the acts that he was accused of and either blacked out or is covering it up. Or 3. He was a choir boy who coincidentally had some inside jokes with his friends that unfairly paint him as a sloppy womanizing party boy. And a conspiracy between democratic activists have led to these several fabricated accusations designed to block his nomination and ruin his life.

I must say if it is number 3 then the fabricators must be some of the dumbest people in the world because I don’t see how anybody could make up such flawed stories. Hell, I’d just say he caught her one on one and assaulted her or I’d pit two of the accusers together to validate each others story. It’s been tough for me to make sense out of the fabrication narrative from a realistic standpoint when I explore SPECULATE about the details and motives of the accusation.

His accounts in no way match what he is accused of, and no, I don’t accept there are only your 3 scenarios. The fourth scenario is just as he said, he liked beer, he drank beer, sometimes he drank too much beer, and no he didn’t attempt to sexually assault Fraud or anyone else.

Any problems people are having with his testimony seem to be basically subjective regarding how you interpret his performance, or based on hearsay, NOT evidence.

The problems with Frauds testimony are not based upon her performance or subjective interpretation of her performance, but upon either actual provable lies (flying), her frequently changing testimony, and a complete lack of verifiable facts.

Kav did not present himself as a choirboy either, how many times did he have to say he did drink, he likes drink and that sometimes he drank too much???

Back to Mitchell, I don’t know if it’s in her remit to report on Kavs testimony. Whether it is or not was clearly understood and agreed to in advance by both parties.

Maybe the Dems were confident that their constant accusations of alcoholism would seal the deal?

Listen Tilly... Jesus made wine out of water and gave it to his deciples to drink. Friar Tuck was the king of beer. Just because Kav said he drinks beer he wasn’t saying anything to tarnish the reputation that he was painting for himself. Which I wouldn’t expect him too. But many people have come forward to say he was a sloppy and aggressive drunk when he was in school. He and his friends chased girls and had lewd sexual ambitions. Many things that fall close to these accusations against him. And he is throwing shade

We saw how Bush handled his past. He admitted that he made adolescent mistakes. Kav is taking a different approach that many are seeing as dishonest. Plus the fact that he was under oath in a congressional hearing makes it even worse.

And many people have come forward and said he absolutely wasn’t an aggressive or sloppy drunk in school. Neither opinion is provable.

Even though this isn’t a legal proceeding I want to make the point that several cases are decided by eye witness accounts. So you can say that witness accounts are not proof but if they are vetted, credible, corroborated and backed up by others they are often the evidence used to convict in many court cases.

 

[Tilly]

Dums played the white male racist/sexist card so Reps had her ask the questions.

We can readily agree Dums have misplayed this from the start. It will cost them the midterms.

What happens if you’re wrong and the Dems win the midterms and take over the house? Will you change your tune or make excuses?

Then they can probably expect the same disgusting treatment.

That tit for tat attitude has been going on for years. The Dems feel justified in their obstruction because of what the republicans did to Garland. How does it ever stop?

Well the Dems just upped the anti, bigly.
Pretty stupid and extremely nasty, imho.

If the Dems were part of a conspiracy to fabricate stories to block a judge they should all be impeached and along with accusers thrown in jail. If that’s really what you think is happening then you should be pushing the FBI to investigate the shit out of this thing and expose the corruption. Something of this scale shouldn’t be too difficult to track down don’t you think?

Graham wants another investigation — into how Democrats handled Ford's accusations
“We’re going to do a wholesale and full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process,” Graham told ABC’s “This Week.”


Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and prominent defender of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, called Sunday for an investigation into how the allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford became public.

“We’re going to do a wholesale and full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process,” Graham, of South Carolina, said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Graham — who made headlines during Thursday’s hearing for growing furious with Senate Democrats and blasting them for orchestrating a “sham” — said Sunday that he would demand an investigation into “what happened in this committee.”

“Who betrayed Dr. Ford’s trust, who in Feinstein’s office recommended Katz as a lawyer, why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California,” Graham said, listing the elements he wanted looked into....

Graham wants another investigation — into how Democrats handled Ford's accusations

 

[Tilly]

Kav said he loved beer then, and that he loves beer now.
Even when the Dems were trying their hardest to paint him as an alcoholic he still admitted he sometimes drank too much and would need to sleep it off.

None of what he said about drinking seems suspicious to me, so you’ll have to tell me what conclusions you think she could/should fairly draw and publish about it and how it can reasonably and fairly be tied to an accusation he hasn’t even been proven to be physically connected to.

And none of his testimony points to him sexually assaulting anyone, let alone Blasey Fraud with whom he still hasn’t even been placed in the same room, building or street, which is what Mitchell was their to find out.

Drinking too much and even referencing sex (if that’s what he did) does not in any way make him a sexual assaulter - it doesn’t help Frauds case at all, in any way.

There is a HUGE difference between noting Fraud said she could fly but there is evidence she flies frequently; that she not only has memory lapses from 36 years ago, but also apparently has them regarding events that happened a few weeks ago, and that none of the witnesses she named corroborate her story, to deciding I just don’t believe the name of Kavs drinking game!

Blasey Frauds online stuff showed her to be a hard drinking party girl. All that stuff was scrubbed. If you want trial by drinking, partying behaviour and yearbooks, perhaps hers need to be subpoenaed and examined too - in the name of fairness.

But still, you tell me how a much admired experienced prosecutor such as Mitchell would word that and work again.

Well the line of questioning and areas of concern are somewhat obvious. He was asked about his drinking because there have been several witness accounts that he was a sloppy and aggressive drunk. He was asked about his year book because it referenced excessive drinking, sexual activities and even two on one sexual escapades, which match his accusers accusation. His interview with fox and testimony under oath didn’t exactly match these accounts as he painted himself as a hard working virgin who liked the occasional beer.

So it appears there are one of three scenarios happening with him. 1. He was embarrassed ashamed of his behavior as a kid and was lying about it under oath. 2. He committed the acts that he was accused of and either blacked out or is covering it up. Or 3. He was a choir boy who coincidentally had some inside jokes with his friends that unfairly paint him as a sloppy womanizing party boy. And a conspiracy between democratic activists have led to these several fabricated accusations designed to block his nomination and ruin his life.

I must say if it is number 3 then the fabricators must be some of the dumbest people in the world because I don’t see how anybody could make up such flawed stories. Hell, I’d just say he caught her one on one and assaulted her or I’d pit two of the accusers together to validate each others story. It’s been tough for me to make sense out of the fabrication narrative from a realistic standpoint when I explore SPECULATE about the details and motives of the accusation.

His accounts in no way match what he is accused of, and no, I don’t accept there are only your 3 scenarios. The fourth scenario is just as he said, he liked beer, he drank beer, sometimes he drank too much beer, and no he didn’t attempt to sexually assault Fraud or anyone else.

Any problems people are having with his testimony seem to be basically subjective regarding how you interpret his performance, or based on hearsay, NOT evidence.

The problems with Frauds testimony are not based upon her performance or subjective interpretation of her performance, but upon either actual provable lies (flying), her frequently changing testimony, and a complete lack of verifiable facts.

Kav did not present himself as a choirboy either, how many times did he have to say he did drink, he likes drink and that sometimes he drank too much???

Back to Mitchell, I don’t know if it’s in her remit to report on Kavs testimony. Whether it is or not was clearly understood and agreed to in advance by both parties.

Maybe the Dems were confident that their constant accusations of alcoholism would seal the deal?

Listen Tilly... Jesus made wine out of water and gave it to his deciples to drink. Friar Tuck was the king of beer. Just because Kav said he drinks beer he wasn’t saying anything to tarnish the reputation that he was painting for himself. Which I wouldn’t expect him too. But many people have come forward to say he was a sloppy and aggressive drunk when he was in school. He and his friends chased girls and had lewd sexual ambitions. Many things that fall close to these accusations against him. And he is throwing shade

We saw how Bush handled his past. He admitted that he made adolescent mistakes. Kav is taking a different approach that many are seeing as dishonest. Plus the fact that he was under oath in a congressional hearing makes it even worse.

And many people have come forward and said he absolutely wasn’t an aggressive or sloppy drunk in school. Neither opinion is provable.

Even though this isn’t a legal proceeding I want to make the point that several cases are decided by eye witness accounts. So you can say that witness accounts are not proof but if they are vetted, credible, corroborated and backed up by others they are often the evidence used to convict in many court cases.

Usually supporting evidence, and certainly not regarding alleged events that are 36 years old for which there are no dates and locations and no corroborating witnesses.

 

[Slade3200]

What happens if you’re wrong and the Dems win the midterms and take over the house? Will you change your tune or make excuses?

Then they can probably expect the same disgusting treatment.

That tit for tat attitude has been going on for years. The Dems feel justified in their obstruction because of what the republicans did to Garland. How does it ever stop?

Well the Dems just upped the anti, bigly.
Pretty stupid and extremely nasty, imho.

If the Dems were part of a conspiracy to fabricate stories to block a judge they should all be impeached and along with accusers thrown in jail. If that’s really what you think is happening then you should be pushing the FBI to investigate the shit out of this thing and expose the corruption. Something of this scale shouldn’t be too difficult to track down don’t you think?

Graham wants another investigation — into how Democrats handled Ford's accusations
“We’re going to do a wholesale and full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process,” Graham told ABC’s “This Week.”


Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and prominent defender of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, called Sunday for an investigation into how the allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford became public.

“We’re going to do a wholesale and full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process,” Graham, of South Carolina, said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Graham — who made headlines during Thursday’s hearing for growing furious with Senate Democrats and blasting them for orchestrating a “sham” — said Sunday that he would demand an investigation into “what happened in this committee.”

“Who betrayed Dr. Ford’s trust, who in Feinstein’s office recommended Katz as a lawyer, why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California,” Graham said, listing the elements he wanted looked into....

Graham wants another investigation — into how Democrats handled Ford's accusations

Yeah, everything warrants an investigation. I guess that’s what congress does now. That’s what happens when you got two partisan teams playing against each other. It’s a sad state we are in.

 

[Slade3200]

Well the line of questioning and areas of concern are somewhat obvious. He was asked about his drinking because there have been several witness accounts that he was a sloppy and aggressive drunk. He was asked about his year book because it referenced excessive drinking, sexual activities and even two on one sexual escapades, which match his accusers accusation. His interview with fox and testimony under oath didn’t exactly match these accounts as he painted himself as a hard working virgin who liked the occasional beer.

So it appears there are one of three scenarios happening with him. 1. He was embarrassed ashamed of his behavior as a kid and was lying about it under oath. 2. He committed the acts that he was accused of and either blacked out or is covering it up. Or 3. He was a choir boy who coincidentally had some inside jokes with his friends that unfairly paint him as a sloppy womanizing party boy. And a conspiracy between democratic activists have led to these several fabricated accusations designed to block his nomination and ruin his life.

I must say if it is number 3 then the fabricators must be some of the dumbest people in the world because I don’t see how anybody could make up such flawed stories. Hell, I’d just say he caught her one on one and assaulted her or I’d pit two of the accusers together to validate each others story. It’s been tough for me to make sense out of the fabrication narrative from a realistic standpoint when I explore SPECULATE about the details and motives of the accusation.

His accounts in no way match what he is accused of, and no, I don’t accept there are only your 3 scenarios. The fourth scenario is just as he said, he liked beer, he drank beer, sometimes he drank too much beer, and no he didn’t attempt to sexually assault Fraud or anyone else.

Any problems people are having with his testimony seem to be basically subjective regarding how you interpret his performance, or based on hearsay, NOT evidence.

The problems with Frauds testimony are not based upon her performance or subjective interpretation of her performance, but upon either actual provable lies (flying), her frequently changing testimony, and a complete lack of verifiable facts.

Kav did not present himself as a choirboy either, how many times did he have to say he did drink, he likes drink and that sometimes he drank too much???

Back to Mitchell, I don’t know if it’s in her remit to report on Kavs testimony. Whether it is or not was clearly understood and agreed to in advance by both parties.

Maybe the Dems were confident that their constant accusations of alcoholism would seal the deal?

Listen Tilly... Jesus made wine out of water and gave it to his deciples to drink. Friar Tuck was the king of beer. Just because Kav said he drinks beer he wasn’t saying anything to tarnish the reputation that he was painting for himself. Which I wouldn’t expect him too. But many people have come forward to say he was a sloppy and aggressive drunk when he was in school. He and his friends chased girls and had lewd sexual ambitions. Many things that fall close to these accusations against him. And he is throwing shade

We saw how Bush handled his past. He admitted that he made adolescent mistakes. Kav is taking a different approach that many are seeing as dishonest. Plus the fact that he was under oath in a congressional hearing makes it even worse.

And many people have come forward and said he absolutely wasn’t an aggressive or sloppy drunk in school. Neither opinion is provable.

Even though this isn’t a legal proceeding I want to make the point that several cases are decided by eye witness accounts. So you can say that witness accounts are not proof but if they are vetted, credible, corroborated and backed up by others they are often the evidence used to convict in many court cases.

Usually supporting evidence, and certainly not regarding alleged events that are 36 years old for which there are no dates and locations and no corroborating witnesses.

There were plenty of accusations of that kind against the catholic priests. I’m curious did you doubt those that had no evidence besides just their word when it came to that disgusting situation?

 

[Tilly]

Then they can probably expect the same disgusting treatment.

That tit for tat attitude has been going on for years. The Dems feel justified in their obstruction because of what the republicans did to Garland. How does it ever stop?

Well the Dems just upped the anti, bigly.
Pretty stupid and extremely nasty, imho.

If the Dems were part of a conspiracy to fabricate stories to block a judge they should all be impeached and along with accusers thrown in jail. If that’s really what you think is happening then you should be pushing the FBI to investigate the shit out of this thing and expose the corruption. Something of this scale shouldn’t be too difficult to track down don’t you think?

Graham wants another investigation — into how Democrats handled Ford's accusations
“We’re going to do a wholesale and full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process,” Graham told ABC’s “This Week.”


Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and prominent defender of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, called Sunday for an investigation into how the allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford became public.

“We’re going to do a wholesale and full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process,” Graham, of South Carolina, said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Graham — who made headlines during Thursday’s hearing for growing furious with Senate Democrats and blasting them for orchestrating a “sham” — said Sunday that he would demand an investigation into “what happened in this committee.”

“Who betrayed Dr. Ford’s trust, who in Feinstein’s office recommended Katz as a lawyer, why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California,” Graham said, listing the elements he wanted looked into....

Graham wants another investigation — into how Democrats handled Ford's accusations

Yeah, everything warrants an investigation. I guess that’s what congress does now. That’s what happens when you got two partisan teams playing against each other. It’s a sad state we are in.

But I thought you liked investigations?

Slade: ‘If the Dems were part of a conspiracy to fabricate stories to block a judge they should all be impeached and along with accusers thrown in jail. If that’s really what you think is happening then you should be pushing the FBI to investigate the shit out of this thing and expose the corruption. ‘

Anyway, best to investigate before impeaching them!

 

[Tilly]

His accounts in no way match what he is accused of, and no, I don’t accept there are only your 3 scenarios. The fourth scenario is just as he said, he liked beer, he drank beer, sometimes he drank too much beer, and no he didn’t attempt to sexually assault Fraud or anyone else.

Any problems people are having with his testimony seem to be basically subjective regarding how you interpret his performance, or based on hearsay, NOT evidence.

The problems with Frauds testimony are not based upon her performance or subjective interpretation of her performance, but upon either actual provable lies (flying), her frequently changing testimony, and a complete lack of verifiable facts.

Kav did not present himself as a choirboy either, how many times did he have to say he did drink, he likes drink and that sometimes he drank too much???

Back to Mitchell, I don’t know if it’s in her remit to report on Kavs testimony. Whether it is or not was clearly understood and agreed to in advance by both parties.

Maybe the Dems were confident that their constant accusations of alcoholism would seal the deal?

Listen Tilly... Jesus made wine out of water and gave it to his deciples to drink. Friar Tuck was the king of beer. Just because Kav said he drinks beer he wasn’t saying anything to tarnish the reputation that he was painting for himself. Which I wouldn’t expect him too. But many people have come forward to say he was a sloppy and aggressive drunk when he was in school. He and his friends chased girls and had lewd sexual ambitions. Many things that fall close to these accusations against him. And he is throwing shade

We saw how Bush handled his past. He admitted that he made adolescent mistakes. Kav is taking a different approach that many are seeing as dishonest. Plus the fact that he was under oath in a congressional hearing makes it even worse.

And many people have come forward and said he absolutely wasn’t an aggressive or sloppy drunk in school. Neither opinion is provable.

Even though this isn’t a legal proceeding I want to make the point that several cases are decided by eye witness accounts. So you can say that witness accounts are not proof but if they are vetted, credible, corroborated and backed up by others they are often the evidence used to convict in many court cases.

Usually supporting evidence, and certainly not regarding alleged events that are 36 years old for which there are no dates and locations and no corroborating witnesses.

There were plenty of accusations of that kind against the catholic priests. I’m curious did you doubt those that had no evidence besides just their word when it came to that disgusting situation?

They normally had corroboration and even dates and locations!

 

[Foxfyre]

Then they can probably expect the same disgusting treatment.

That tit for tat attitude has been going on for years. The Dems feel justified in their obstruction because of what the republicans did to Garland. How does it ever stop?

Well the Dems just upped the anti, bigly.
Pretty stupid and extremely nasty, imho.

If the Dems were part of a conspiracy to fabricate stories to block a judge they should all be impeached and along with accusers thrown in jail. If that’s really what you think is happening then you should be pushing the FBI to investigate the shit out of this thing and expose the corruption. Something of this scale shouldn’t be too difficult to track down don’t you think?

Graham wants another investigation — into how Democrats handled Ford's accusations
“We’re going to do a wholesale and full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process,” Graham told ABC’s “This Week.”


Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and prominent defender of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, called Sunday for an investigation into how the allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford became public.

“We’re going to do a wholesale and full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process,” Graham, of South Carolina, said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Graham — who made headlines during Thursday’s hearing for growing furious with Senate Democrats and blasting them for orchestrating a “sham” — said Sunday that he would demand an investigation into “what happened in this committee.”

“Who betrayed Dr. Ford’s trust, who in Feinstein’s office recommended Katz as a lawyer, why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California,” Graham said, listing the elements he wanted looked into....

Graham wants another investigation — into how Democrats handled Ford's accusations

Yeah, everything warrants an investigation. I guess that’s what congress does now. That’s what happens when you got two partisan teams playing against each other. It’s a sad state we are in.

I would agree that investigations purely motivated by partisanship/greed/eagerness for power etc. are reprehensible, despicable, hateful, vile, unjustifiable. Most especially when they result in destruction of innocent people's good name, reputation, ability to earn a living, relationships, and hurt countless other people. There is no word to describe that other than pure evil.

At the same time, I understand Senator Graham's point. The only way to stop that kind of politics of personal destruction is to expose and call out those doing it. It is high time somebody did.

 

[Slade3200]

That tit for tat attitude has been going on for years. The Dems feel justified in their obstruction because of what the republicans did to Garland. How does it ever stop?

Well the Dems just upped the anti, bigly.
Pretty stupid and extremely nasty, imho.

If the Dems were part of a conspiracy to fabricate stories to block a judge they should all be impeached and along with accusers thrown in jail. If that’s really what you think is happening then you should be pushing the FBI to investigate the shit out of this thing and expose the corruption. Something of this scale shouldn’t be too difficult to track down don’t you think?

Graham wants another investigation — into how Democrats handled Ford's accusations
“We’re going to do a wholesale and full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process,” Graham told ABC’s “This Week.”


Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and prominent defender of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, called Sunday for an investigation into how the allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford became public.

“We’re going to do a wholesale and full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process,” Graham, of South Carolina, said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Graham — who made headlines during Thursday’s hearing for growing furious with Senate Democrats and blasting them for orchestrating a “sham” — said Sunday that he would demand an investigation into “what happened in this committee.”

“Who betrayed Dr. Ford’s trust, who in Feinstein’s office recommended Katz as a lawyer, why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California,” Graham said, listing the elements he wanted looked into....

Graham wants another investigation — into how Democrats handled Ford's accusations

Yeah, everything warrants an investigation. I guess that’s what congress does now. That’s what happens when you got two partisan teams playing against each other. It’s a sad state we are in.

But I thought you liked investigations?

‘If the Dems were part of a conspiracy to fabricate stories to block a judge they should all be impeached and along with accusers thrown in jail. If that’s really what you think is happening then you should be pushing the FBI to investigate the shit out of this thing and expose the corruption. ‘

Anyway, best to investigate before impeaching them!

I did think a deep dive into these accusations by a professional impartial body was warranted in this case. This is the Supreme Court and a controversy that has consumed our media for weeks now. It’s important to Our country to try and seek clarity.

Graham’s on a soapbox right now. Investigating DiFi is a joke and a partisan hit job. What’s he trying to find out? If she leaked the letter? Then what? Is Ford calling for an investigation? She’s the one who would have the grievance

 

[Aba Incieni]

Republicans feel that a woman should never ever be believed over a man.

Down goes Ellison.

 

[Slade3200]

Listen Tilly... Jesus made wine out of water and gave it to his deciples to drink. Friar Tuck was the king of beer. Just because Kav said he drinks beer he wasn’t saying anything to tarnish the reputation that he was painting for himself. Which I wouldn’t expect him too. But many people have come forward to say he was a sloppy and aggressive drunk when he was in school. He and his friends chased girls and had lewd sexual ambitions. Many things that fall close to these accusations against him. And he is throwing shade

We saw how Bush handled his past. He admitted that he made adolescent mistakes. Kav is taking a different approach that many are seeing as dishonest. Plus the fact that he was under oath in a congressional hearing makes it even worse.

And many people have come forward and said he absolutely wasn’t an aggressive or sloppy drunk in school. Neither opinion is provable.

Even though this isn’t a legal proceeding I want to make the point that several cases are decided by eye witness accounts. So you can say that witness accounts are not proof but if they are vetted, credible, corroborated and backed up by others they are often the evidence used to convict in many court cases.

Usually supporting evidence, and certainly not regarding alleged events that are 36 years old for which there are no dates and locations and no corroborating witnesses.

There were plenty of accusations of that kind against the catholic priests. I’m curious did you doubt those that had no evidence besides just their word when it came to that disgusting situation?

They normally had corroboration and even dates and locations!

You sure about that?

 

[Aba Incieni]

Kav said he loved beer then, and that he loves beer now.
Even when the Dems were trying their hardest to paint him as an alcoholic he still admitted he sometimes drank too much and would need to sleep it off.

None of what he said about drinking seems suspicious to me, so you’ll have to tell me what conclusions you think she could/should fairly draw and publish about it and how it can reasonably and fairly be tied to an accusation he hasn’t even been proven to be physically connected to.

And none of his testimony points to him sexually assaulting anyone, let alone Blasey Fraud with whom he still hasn’t even been placed in the same room, building or street, which is what Mitchell was their to find out.

Drinking too much and even referencing sex (if that’s what he did) does not in any way make him a sexual assaulter - it doesn’t help Frauds case at all, in any way.

There is a HUGE difference between noting Fraud said she could fly but there is evidence she flies frequently; that she not only has memory lapses from 36 years ago, but also apparently has them regarding events that happened a few weeks ago, and that none of the witnesses she named corroborate her story, to deciding I just don’t believe the name of Kavs drinking game!

Blasey Frauds online stuff showed her to be a hard drinking party girl. All that stuff was scrubbed. If you want trial by drinking, partying behaviour and yearbooks, perhaps hers need to be subpoenaed and examined too - in the name of fairness.

But still, you tell me how a much admired experienced prosecutor such as Mitchell would word that and work again.

Well the line of questioning and areas of concern are somewhat obvious. He was asked about his drinking because there have been several witness accounts that he was a sloppy and aggressive drunk. He was asked about his year book because it referenced excessive drinking, sexual activities and even two on one sexual escapades, which match his accusers accusation. His interview with fox and testimony under oath didn’t exactly match these accounts as he painted himself as a hard working virgin who liked the occasional beer.

So it appears there are one of three scenarios happening with him. 1. He was embarrassed ashamed of his behavior as a kid and was lying about it under oath. 2. He committed the acts that he was accused of and either blacked out or is covering it up. Or 3. He was a choir boy who coincidentally had some inside jokes with his friends that unfairly paint him as a sloppy womanizing party boy. And a conspiracy between democratic activists have led to these several fabricated accusations designed to block his nomination and ruin his life.

I must say if it is number 3 then the fabricators must be some of the dumbest people in the world because I don’t see how anybody could make up such flawed stories. Hell, I’d just say he caught her one on one and assaulted her or I’d pit two of the accusers together to validate each others story. It’s been tough for me to make sense out of the fabrication narrative from a realistic standpoint when I explore SPECULATE about the details and motives of the accusation.

His accounts in no way match what he is accused of, and no, I don’t accept there are only your 3 scenarios. The fourth scenario is just as he said, he liked beer, he drank beer, sometimes he drank too much beer, and no he didn’t attempt to sexually assault Fraud or anyone else.

Any problems people are having with his testimony seem to be basically subjective regarding how you interpret his performance, or based on hearsay, NOT evidence.

The problems with Frauds testimony are not based upon her performance or subjective interpretation of her performance, but upon either actual provable lies (flying), her frequently changing testimony, and a complete lack of verifiable facts.

Kav did not present himself as a choirboy either, how many times did he have to say he did drink, he likes drink and that sometimes he drank too much???

Back to Mitchell, I don’t know if it’s in her remit to report on Kavs testimony. Whether it is or not was clearly understood and agreed to in advance by both parties.

Maybe the Dems were confident that their constant accusations of alcoholism would seal the deal?

Listen Tilly... Jesus made wine out of water and gave it to his deciples to drink. Friar Tuck was the king of beer. Just because Kav said he drinks beer he wasn’t saying anything to tarnish the reputation that he was painting for himself. Which I wouldn’t expect him too. But many people have come forward to say he was a sloppy and aggressive drunk when he was in school. He and his friends chased girls and had lewd sexual ambitions. Many things that fall close to these accusations against him. And he is throwing shade

We saw how Bush handled his past. He admitted that he made adolescent mistakes. Kav is taking a different approach that many are seeing as dishonest. Plus the fact that he was under oath in a congressional hearing makes it even worse.

And many people have come forward and said he absolutely wasn’t an aggressive or sloppy drunk in school. Neither opinion is provable.

Even though this isn’t a legal proceeding I want to make the point that several cases are decided by eye witness accounts. So you can say that witness accounts are not proof but if they are vetted, credible, corroborated and backed up by others they are often the evidence used to convict in many court cases.

Or refute and absolve. Like in this case.

 

[Slade3200]

That tit for tat attitude has been going on for years. The Dems feel justified in their obstruction because of what the republicans did to Garland. How does it ever stop?

Well the Dems just upped the anti, bigly.
Pretty stupid and extremely nasty, imho.

If the Dems were part of a conspiracy to fabricate stories to block a judge they should all be impeached and along with accusers thrown in jail. If that’s really what you think is happening then you should be pushing the FBI to investigate the shit out of this thing and expose the corruption. Something of this scale shouldn’t be too difficult to track down don’t you think?

Graham wants another investigation — into how Democrats handled Ford's accusations
“We’re going to do a wholesale and full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process,” Graham told ABC’s “This Week.”


Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and prominent defender of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, called Sunday for an investigation into how the allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford became public.

“We’re going to do a wholesale and full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process,” Graham, of South Carolina, said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Graham — who made headlines during Thursday’s hearing for growing furious with Senate Democrats and blasting them for orchestrating a “sham” — said Sunday that he would demand an investigation into “what happened in this committee.”

“Who betrayed Dr. Ford’s trust, who in Feinstein’s office recommended Katz as a lawyer, why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California,” Graham said, listing the elements he wanted looked into....

Graham wants another investigation — into how Democrats handled Ford's accusations

Yeah, everything warrants an investigation. I guess that’s what congress does now. That’s what happens when you got two partisan teams playing against each other. It’s a sad state we are in.

I would agree that investigations purely motivated by partisanship/greed/eagerness for power etc. are reprehensible, despicable, hateful, vile, unjustifiable. Most especially when they result in destruction of innocent people's good name, reputation, ability to earn a living, relationships, and hurt countless other people. There is no word to describe that other than pure evil.

At the same time, I understand Senator Graham's point. The only way to stop that kind of politics of personal destruction is to expose and call out those doing it. It is high time somebody did.

What is he trying to uncover? I think the delay tactic is very obvious. Is it illegal?

 

[Tilly]

Kav is taking a different approach that many are seeing as dishonest. Plus the fact that he was under oath in a congressional hearing makes it even worse.

In your opinion he’s ‘taking an approach’.
Maybe he’s simply telling the truth.

Well his truth is conflicting facts and with several other people’s truths. Did you see the letter that just came out today that he wrote to his buddies where he signed it FFFFF Bart? So much for his studdering friend story.

What? It doesn’t refute his stuttering friend theory. The group adopted the Ffffff thing as a joke/mimicking thing.
You really do seem desperate to interpret everything about Kav and his schoolboy antics as sinister and evidence he’s a sex assaulter, even though some of his accusers statements have been proven to be lies, and none of his have.
Even though his accuser can provide absolutely no evidence to back her story.
Even though the witnesses she named, one her good friend, cannot corroborate her story.
Even though she won’t hand over the counselling notes nor the polygraph data to be examined.

 

[Tilly]

Well the Dems just upped the anti, bigly.
Pretty stupid and extremely nasty, imho.

If the Dems were part of a conspiracy to fabricate stories to block a judge they should all be impeached and along with accusers thrown in jail. If that’s really what you think is happening then you should be pushing the FBI to investigate the shit out of this thing and expose the corruption. Something of this scale shouldn’t be too difficult to track down don’t you think?

Graham wants another investigation — into how Democrats handled Ford's accusations
“We’re going to do a wholesale and full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process,” Graham told ABC’s “This Week.”


Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and prominent defender of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, called Sunday for an investigation into how the allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford became public.

“We’re going to do a wholesale and full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process,” Graham, of South Carolina, said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Graham — who made headlines during Thursday’s hearing for growing furious with Senate Democrats and blasting them for orchestrating a “sham” — said Sunday that he would demand an investigation into “what happened in this committee.”

“Who betrayed Dr. Ford’s trust, who in Feinstein’s office recommended Katz as a lawyer, why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California,” Graham said, listing the elements he wanted looked into....

Graham wants another investigation — into how Democrats handled Ford's accusations

Yeah, everything warrants an investigation. I guess that’s what congress does now. That’s what happens when you got two partisan teams playing against each other. It’s a sad state we are in.

But I thought you liked investigations?

‘If the Dems were part of a conspiracy to fabricate stories to block a judge they should all be impeached and along with accusers thrown in jail. If that’s really what you think is happening then you should be pushing the FBI to investigate the shit out of this thing and expose the corruption. ‘

Anyway, best to investigate before impeaching them!

I did think a deep dive into these accusations by a professional impartial body was warranted in this case. This is the Supreme Court and a controversy that has consumed our media for weeks now. It’s important to Our country to try and seek clarity.

Graham’s on a soapbox right now. Investigating DiFi is a joke and a partisan hit job. What’s he trying to find out? If she leaked the letter? Then what? Is Ford calling for an investigation? She’s the one who would have the grievance

Are you for real?
Yes this needs investigating!
People should not be allowed to sit on allegations until they consider they’ve got nothing else to destroy the reputations of candidates and therefore deploy them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well the Dems just upped the anti, bigly.
Pretty stupid and extremely nasty, imho.

If the Dems were part of a conspiracy to fabricate stories to block a judge they should all be impeached and along with accusers thrown in jail. If that’s really what you think is happening then you should be pushing the FBI to investigate the shit out of this thing and expose the corruption. Something of this scale shouldn’t be too difficult to track down don’t you think?

Graham wants another investigation — into how Democrats handled Ford's accusations
“We’re going to do a wholesale and full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process,” Graham told ABC’s “This Week.”


Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and prominent defender of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, called Sunday for an investigation into how the allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford became public.

“We’re going to do a wholesale and full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process,” Graham, of South Carolina, said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Graham — who made headlines during Thursday’s hearing for growing furious with Senate Democrats and blasting them for orchestrating a “sham” — said Sunday that he would demand an investigation into “what happened in this committee.”

“Who betrayed Dr. Ford’s trust, who in Feinstein’s office recommended Katz as a lawyer, why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California,” Graham said, listing the elements he wanted looked into....

Graham wants another investigation — into how Democrats handled Ford's accusations

Yeah, everything warrants an investigation. I guess that’s what congress does now. That’s what happens when you got two partisan teams playing against each other. It’s a sad state we are in.

I would agree that investigations purely motivated by partisanship/greed/eagerness for power etc. are reprehensible, despicable, hateful, vile, unjustifiable. Most especially when they result in destruction of innocent people's good name, reputation, ability to earn a living, relationships, and hurt countless other people. There is no word to describe that other than pure evil.

At the same time, I understand Senator Graham's point. The only way to stop that kind of politics of personal destruction is to expose and call out those doing it. It is high time somebody did.

What is he trying to uncover? I think the delay tactic is very obvious. Is it illegal?

No delay tactic involved of any sort. But there is plenty of question about Christine Ford's testimony, what she remembers compared to what she doesn't remember, how Senator Feinstein who sat on Ford's letter until the moment it would be most damaging also recommended activist attorneys for Ford, who is funding Ford's legal costs--Ford isn't paying them--the questions her attorney would not allow her to answer at the hearing, etc.

If the whole thing was ginned up to attack a person they all knew was innocent of any crime--and it sure looks like that to anybody who is intellectually honest--that should be exposed for what it is: the most dishonest, ugly, hateful, reprehensible, and evil form of politics.

I hope the GOP retains the House and Senate come November, and I hope they and the President are successful in amending the libel and slander laws so that this kind of thing cannot happen with impunity.

 

[Tilly]

And many people have come forward and said he absolutely wasn’t an aggressive or sloppy drunk in school. Neither opinion is provable.

Even though this isn’t a legal proceeding I want to make the point that several cases are decided by eye witness accounts. So you can say that witness accounts are not proof but if they are vetted, credible, corroborated and backed up by others they are often the evidence used to convict in many court cases.

Usually supporting evidence, and certainly not regarding alleged events that are 36 years old for which there are no dates and locations and no corroborating witnesses.

There were plenty of accusations of that kind against the catholic priests. I’m curious did you doubt those that had no evidence besides just their word when it came to that disgusting situation?

They normally had corroboration and even dates and locations!

You sure about that?

They were able to say when and where it happened, that’s more than Blasey Fraud has.
Do you doubt that?