Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford offers Senate four people who corroborate her assault claims

[jc456]

she won't be there tomorrow. I predict!!!!

I'm gonna laugh my mther fking ass off when she's a no show.

Do you get the proverbial FOOT UP YO ASS!!! when she shows up bright and early on tomorrow morning?

yeppers. I'm confident I won't get it though!!!!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You do understand it is a crime tp lie to the senate don't you?

Anita Hill lied under oath about being a Reagan political appointee and a Republican.

She never got indicted or punished.

I got pulled over for speeding a few weeks ago and was let off.

Apparently she did not lie.

Apparently you can't ******* do basic math.

4 in the room including Kavanaugh. ALL 4 DENY


Now four that will say they were?
That makes 8 people everyday according to my math wizardry

 

[PoliticalChic]

That it's ok to sexually assault a woman who is a Democrat

Juannita Brodderick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones were all registered Dems when Slick assaulted/raped them....

Where are the rape indictments?

The elites have admitted it....but the dunces...you.... are unable to let go of last years lies.....


1. Had it not been for Trump's election....none of this would be happening!
With Hillary running, the whole rape-apologist program of the Democrats came to the the forefront....and they had to pretend that Trump was on the same level (the gutter) as Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.

Here's the 'divide:' the Democrats with at least a double digit IQ are ready to admit the truth, the rape history that the Right has been revealing about Clinton for...what....decades.

You, a total dunce, are still fighting the war you've lost.

2. Which Liberal outlets are now admitting what we on the Right have said for decades?

The New York Times

MSNBC

The Atlantic

Slate


3. On the other side....lying low-life imbeciles.....you.....who can't keep up with the program.


4. NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...


"But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.

The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?


...the most important escalators were the Democrats. They had an opportunity, with Al Gore waiting in the wings, to show a predator the door and establish some moral common ground for a polarizing country.

And what they did instead — turning their party into an accessory to Clinton’s appetites, shamelessly abandoning feminist principle, smearing victims and blithely ignoring his most credible accuser, all because Republicans funded the investigations and they’re prudes and it’s all just Sexual McCarthyism — feels in the cold clarity of hindsight like a great act of partisan deformation." Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?



See why folks refer to you as 'slow'?

 

[Avatar4321]

she won't be there tomorrow. I predict!!!!

I'm gonna laugh my mther fking ass off when she's a no show.

Do you get the proverbial FOOT UP YO ASS!!! when she shows up bright and early on tomorrow morning?

has she started driving?

 

[easyt65]

you don't get to make up rules. I asked for what is credible. why can't you answer that? I asked wayyyyyyy before you got involved in here and punk, I don't answer to you. you can pound your fking chest until you touch your heart, the fact remains, you can't point to anything credible. I'm not answering my question for you.

JC you are full of it. Credibility is simply if you have reason to believe someone. You find her unbelievable fine what would convince you? I say besides tapes nothing. Look what easy just posted.

5. This summer, Ford tried to reach out to old friends from high school and college to jog her memory. They couldn’t help her.

One does not ask other people to help her remember details of something that didn't happen. As to making up rules. You made up the rule that one can only asses someone as credible if the accusation meets judicial standards. I asked if you adhere to that rule yourself? Think that's a perfectly legitimate question.

again you can't post what is credible. facts make something credible, now what is factual here?

-Fact, 4 people wrote letters to congress under penalty of perjury to congress , saying that Ford told them about being sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh years BEFORE the accusation went public. That is a fact.
-Fact, coming out with these allegation carry with them a serious psychological price, since these kinds of allegations will be inevitably questioned. Not just questioned but the oldest defense against them is attacking the victim.
-Fact, since these accusations have come out one other person has come forward alleging another instance of sexual assault by Kavanaugh.

FACT: None of what you just posted is evidence that Kavanaugh attacked anyone.

INNOCENT until PROVEN Guilty, snowflake.

Ah so we are again were we started. You use that standard yourself all the time?

Yes, here we are again with you wanting to declare someone guilty without evidence.

 

[jc456]

you don't get to make up rules. I asked for what is credible. why can't you answer that? I asked wayyyyyyy before you got involved in here and punk, I don't answer to you. you can pound your fking chest until you touch your heart, the fact remains, you can't point to anything credible. I'm not answering my question for you.

JC you are full of it. Credibility is simply if you have reason to believe someone. You find her unbelievable fine what would convince you? I say besides tapes nothing. Look what easy just posted.

5. This summer, Ford tried to reach out to old friends from high school and college to jog her memory. They couldn’t help her.

One does not ask other people to help her remember details of something that didn't happen. As to making up rules. You made up the rule that one can only asses someone as credible if the accusation meets judicial standards. I asked if you adhere to that rule yourself? Think that's a perfectly legitimate question.

again you can't post what is credible. facts make something credible, now what is factual here?

-Fact, 4 people wrote letters to congress under penalty of perjury to congress , saying that Ford told them about being sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh years BEFORE the accusation went public. That is a fact.
-Fact, coming out with these allegation carry with them a serious psychological price, since these kinds of allegations will be inevitably questioned. Not just questioned but the oldest defense against them is attacking the victim.
-Fact, since these accusations have come out one other person has come forward alleging another instance of sexual assault by Kavanaugh.

FACT: None of what you just posted is evidence that Kavanaugh attacked anyone.

INNOCENT until PROVEN Guilty, snowflake.

Ah so we are again were we started. You use that standard yourself all the time?

can't move forward since ford hasn't presented anything. shit kavanaugh has released more than she has, which is zippola.

 

[jc456]

she won't be there tomorrow. I predict!!!!

I'm gonna laugh my mther fking ass off when she's a no show.

Do you get the proverbial FOOT UP YO ASS!!! when she shows up bright and early on tomorrow morning?

has she started driving?

I'd like to know how she got to hawaii.

 

[Crixus]

Again, no credibility presented. so these stupid leftist believe nothing is fact! BTW, she will not show up tomorrow. I predict!!!!

How much are you willing to risk on that bet?

What’s the price of plywood in China?

 

[Avatar4321]

she won't be there tomorrow. I predict!!!!

I'm gonna laugh my mther fking ass off when she's a no show.

Do you get the proverbial FOOT UP YO ASS!!! when she shows up bright and early on tomorrow morning?

has she started driving?

I'd like to know how she got to hawaii.

I'm actually curious. If she hasn't started driving she would have to fly at this point and they were saying she couldn't fly for whatever reason

 

[Crixus]

Hahahaha Trumpublincans don't care. That they have 51 votes in the Senate and can ram him down America's throat, like the Good Old boys did to their victims at their house parties, is all that matters to them right now.

Like Bill Clinton did? Like Ted Kennedy did? Hell, he killed his bimbos when he was done with them. I hear his brother really treated the girls nice. Then you got creepy Joe who like to feel people up to. If polititions and public servants learn one thing from all this, it will be that they should drown the woman when they are done like the democrats do, or beat the shit out of them ( Keith Ellison) or just hit on little kids like yalls hero Anthony wiener.

Kennedy ran for President at least twice since that happened, and despite the Kennedy name, he never was nominated to be the Democrat Candidate. Anyone outside of Massachusetts cannot be held responsible for continuing to vote him in as Senator.

So you support the mistreatment of women as long as it’s by democrats and blacks people who are democrats. Got it.

 

[Crixus]

she won't be there tomorrow. I predict!!!!

I'm gonna laugh my mther fking ass off when she's a no show.

Do you get the proverbial FOOT UP YO ASS!!! when she shows up bright and early on tomorrow morning?

has she started driving?

I'd like to know how she got to hawaii.

I'm actually curious. If she hasn't started driving she would have to fly at this point and they were saying she couldn't fly for whatever reason

Because of the trauma of her ordeal with Kavanaugh.

 

[LaDexter]

Apparently she did not lie

LMFAO!!!!

Some Clues to Anita Hill's Motive


"Berry-Myers pointed out that Hill went to work for Thomas in 1981 as a so-called "schedule A" employee - a status given U.S. government civil service bureaucrats to distinguish them from political appointees, known as "schedule Cs. " Berry-Myers says Hill "was not a Reagan Republican" - meaning she had not worked on a Reagan campaign and did not have support of a pro-Reagan legislator.


Based on his talks with students in Hill's class, Cone reported in writing to the Judiciary Committee that "Miss Hill is not an innocent professor thrust into the situation by the media ... but rather a political activist furthering a cause she had so vehemently advanced in the past. " At the Oklahoma Law School, Hill was an adviser to the feminist Organization for the Advancement of Women. One former member, Susan Stallings, who likes Hill personally, says that "Anita Hill is a liberal ... she was for such things as 'comparable worth. ' At our meetings, if it wasn't Reagan bashing, it was Bush bashing. They were terrified of Roe vs. Wade being overturned. " Even if Hill was an ideological foe of Thomas, what led her to come forward at this juncture? From the day President Bush announced the nomination of Thomas to succeed Thurgood Marshall, a veritable army of left-liberal Senate staffers, working in combination with like-minded interest groups, were determined to block him. Hill - rumored to have a "damaging" story - was contacted by several Senate staffers, by anti-Thomas lobbyists and even by one liberal Democrat who sits on the Judiciary Committee: Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois.

 

[jc456]

she won't be there tomorrow. I predict!!!!

I'm gonna laugh my mther fking ass off when she's a no show.

Do you get the proverbial FOOT UP YO ASS!!! when she shows up bright and early on tomorrow morning?

has she started driving?

I'd like to know how she got to hawaii.

I'm actually curious. If she hasn't started driving she would have to fly at this point and they were saying she couldn't fly for whatever reason

I heard it was being in cramped quarters. so I'd like to know how she got to hawaii. what's that flight, like seven hours?

 

[Avatar4321]

she won't be there tomorrow. I predict!!!!

I'm gonna laugh my mther fking ass off when she's a no show.

Do you get the proverbial FOOT UP YO ASS!!! when she shows up bright and early on tomorrow morning?

has she started driving?

I'd like to know how she got to hawaii.

I'm actually curious. If she hasn't started driving she would have to fly at this point and they were saying she couldn't fly for whatever reason

Because of the trauma of her ordeal with Kavanaugh.

So has she started driving?

 

[forkup]

You made that point. It's just a bullshit point. The only person who is avoiding stuff is you. I repeated my question 3 times. The third time in bold letters,highlighted and underlined.

you don't get to make up rules. I asked for what is credible. why can't you answer that? I asked wayyyyyyy before you got involved in here and punk, I don't answer to you. you can pound your fking chest until you touch your heart, the fact remains, you can't point to anything credible. I'm not answering my question for you.

JC you are full of it. Credibility is simply if you have reason to believe someone. You find her unbelievable fine what would convince you? I say besides tapes nothing. Look what easy just posted.

5. This summer, Ford tried to reach out to old friends from high school and college to jog her memory. They couldn’t help her.

One does not ask other people to help her remember details of something that didn't happen. As to making up rules. You made up the rule that one can only asses someone as credible if the accusation meets judicial standards. I asked if you adhere to that rule yourself? Think that's a perfectly legitimate question.

again you can't post what is credible. facts make something credible, now what is factual here?

-Fact, 4 people wrote letters to congress under penalty of perjury to congress , saying that Ford told them about being sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh years BEFORE the accusation went public. That is a fact.
-Fact, coming out with these allegation carry with them a serious psychological price, since these kinds of allegations will be inevitably questioned. Not just questioned but the oldest defense against them is attacking the victim.
-Fact, since these accusations have come out one other person has come forward alleging another instance of sexual assault by Kavanaugh.

fact- hearsay 30 years later isn't proof of anything. so those four witnesses are useless to the accusation.
fact three people that were named there say they weren't there
fact -- ramirez was so drunk she couldn't stand, and won't testify

fact, you still have nothing. not one fact about the accusation. having facts about something that is presented isn't facts of the accusation. you need a better lawyer.

Every single thing here is factually wrong.

fact -- ramirez was so drunk she couldn't stand, and won't testify

In fact Ramirez has offered to testify. Grassley doesn't want to allow it.

fact- hearsay 30 years later isn't proof of anything. so those four witnesses are useless to the accusation.

We are talking credibility. They are relevant to that. Even more you refuse to say if you yourself follow the judicial standard when assessing credibility.

fact three people that were named there say they weren't there

No they said they couldn't recall it.

you need a better lawyer.

You need a better line then treating this like a criminal case. You can't talk about credibility and proven guilt like they are interchangeable .Unless of course if you can establish that that's the position you always take, in which case it'll still be wrong but at least consistent.

 

[bodecea]

Again, no credibility presented. so these stupid leftist believe nothing is fact! BTW, she will not show up tomorrow. I predict!!!!

How much are you willing to risk on that bet?

I don't bet on stupid things. it's my prediction. like it or leave it. I don't need a bet. I need tomorrow to get here so I can laugh when she doesn't show. How did she get to hawaii for her seminar out there since she doesn't fly? hmmmmmmmm

So....not quite so sure. Shocking.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Seems there are actually people who are able to testify that Kavanaugh did this.

Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford offers Senate four people who corroborate her assault claims
Steve Kiggins and Richard Wolf, USA TODAY Published 1:40 a.m. ET Sept. 26, 2018 | Updated 8:31 a.m. ET Sept. 26, 2018

The attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford have sworn and signed declarations from four people who corroborate her claims of sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

In documents sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee and obtained by USA TODAY, Ford’s attorneys present declarations from Ford’s husband, Russell, and three friends who support the California college professor’s accusation that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her and attempted to pull off her clothes while both were high school students in 1982.

The declarations will be used by Ford’s attorneys during a committee hearing on Thursday that could determine the fate of Kavanaugh’s embattled nomination. He also faces a second accusation of sexual assault from Deborah Ramirez, who claims Kavanaugh exposed himself and pushed his genitals into her face at a drunken party during the 1983-84 academic year at Yale University.

Kavanaugh has flatly denied all accusations, including during a national television interview on Fox News Monday night.

Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford offers Senate four people who corroborate her assault claims

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

This is hilarious since NONE of these four people were witnesses of the alleged event of 36 years ago, and being her FRIENDS actually reduced its already low credibility since this is called HEARSAY, normally inadmissible in court for a good reason. They were NOT THERE, that is a fact even those four people make clear in their worthless declarations.

It is pure desperation because the FOUR people Dr. Ford claimed were there, have all under oath said they were never there, including her long time friend.

Her friends declarations can NOT corroborate anything since they are NOT witnesses of the alleged event in 1982. They were NEVER there!

You do understand this is a senate hearing.

Do YOU understand that Dr. Ford has contradicted herself, contradicted by her named witnesses and even by her own Therapist?

She has no credibility in her claims which is why her friends written support are useless since she already destroyed her own claims in the first place. They don't even support her posted allegations at all, what they describe is called HEARSAY nothing more, can't corroborate a claim when they never witnessed any of it.

New York Post

By Paul Sperry

September 25, 2018 |

Eight big problems for Christine Blasey Ford’s story

EXCERPT:

"Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Brett Kavanaugh are serious. She is accusing him of violent attempted rape. “I thought he might inadvertently kill me. He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing,” she told The Washington Post, recounting the alleged incident at a high school party “one summer in the early 1980s.”

But her story is also growing less believable by the day. Here are eight reasons why it’s hardly “anti-woman” for senators to question her account at Thursday’s hearing:

1) For starters, Ford still can’t recall basic details of what she says was the most traumatic event in her life. Not where the “assault” took place — she’s not sure whose house it was, or even what street it was on. Nor when — she’s not even sure of the year, let alone the day and month....."

 

[Thinker101]

Do you get the proverbial FOOT UP YO ASS!!! when she shows up bright and early on tomorrow morning?

has she started driving?

I'd like to know how she got to hawaii.

I'm actually curious. If she hasn't started driving she would have to fly at this point and they were saying she couldn't fly for whatever reason

Because of the trauma of her ordeal with Kavanaugh.

So has she started driving?

She may be waiting at the bus stop.

 

[emilynghiem]

This is hilarious.

Dear LordBrownTrout cc IM2
I don't think it's hilarious because I feel the pain of both Kavanaugh and his accusers, and sympathize with all of them!
I am also aggrieved for people on all sides who are outraged, I sympathize with all those, too!
It's not funny to me to see people in such pain.
How I wish they could laugh, and then I could laugh too, but not right now
when they are seriously angry about the allegations, especially for different reasons!

What I hate most is people attacking each other as "liars" based on speculation.
Neither side has been proven or disproven to be either lying or telling the truth.
I am guessing there is truth on both sides, but both are stretching and omitting parts for their own convenience.
So eliminate that gray area in dispute, and just stick to what they agree is true that is convenient and agreeable to BOTH sides.

That's where this can be mediated to reach a satisfactory conclusion that all sides deserve.
I don't want to burden this board with more threads, but below is my response
to one conservative media personality who posted an argument questioning
Ford's credibility based on a timeline. I still think what she says should be
judged on content, and whether or not it is true, not the timeframe around reporting it.

Ron Phillips

Dear Ron:
with all due respect and support of you Matt CCartel and fellow fans: this questioning detracts and details from the issue and process.
It makes you and Conservative skeptics "reinforce" the very image of people accusing without proof based on speculation.
Neither should Kavanaugh be presumed lying due to other men if his class or group that have lied, nor should Ford be presumed
as lying or stalling due to others of similar class or party using these tactics. Both Ford and Kavanaugh deserve equal protections
to be treated as truthful until they admit otherwise by the same standards you and I would ask for ourselves. Let Ford speak for herself,
let Kavanaugh speak for him, both under oath. Let each person's true perspective be judged as consistent with itself or not, judging
"righteous judgment" not the person only God can judge. Let you and I be judged by our own words and whether we correct ourselves
to be consistent with the values we proclaim to live by. Allow Ford and Kavanaugh the same freedom and respect to correct themselves
if they spoke in error instead of hanging them in the media. God have mercy on all our souls grieving and crying fir Justice right now,
and forgive us our sins as we forgive others who trespass against us. In Jesus name may we all forgive so we may receive Justice
with Mercy that Christ Jesus brings. Amen

 

[JWBooth]

fact -- ramirez was so drunk she couldn't stand, and won't testify

In fact Ramirez has offered to testify. Grassley doesn't want to allow it.
.

In fact Ramirez wanted to dictate terms to the committee on any testimony and when presented with the standard format chose to refuse.