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

[WEATHER53]

467 women have now had their repressed memories awaken due the jolt from these “charges”. None of them ever told anyone nor filed charges but he’s a white male who MUST prove himself innocent

 

[easyt65]

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....."

No evidence.
Incorrect details at best, when she has any
Changed stories
The witnesses she identified said didn't happen

Game, set, and match.

 

[forkup]

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.
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.

MASSIVE No-No:

Obama administration/DOJ coordinated with Hillary's campaign on her e-mail scandal

Clinton camp appeared to have contacts with DOJ on email case

MOST CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION EVUH WORKS WITH '2.0'

You had of course irrefutable evidence that criminal acts were committed here?
This is just ONE of what are undoubtedly hundreds of posts were you allege criminal behavior without having anything more then a news article to go on.

 

[easyt65]

467 women have now had their repressed memories awaken due the jolt from these “charges”. None of them ever told anyone nor filed charges but he’s a white male who MUST prove himself innocent

Repressed memories, as I posted with article / link yesterday, are poor sources of evidence because in many cases the details and even whole events can be 'suggested into existence'. In one case study a psychiatrist was able to create an entire event that never happened that the patient 'remembered ' - a 'repressed memory'.

 

[forkup]

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.

Please give me all the times congress hired outside counsel to question a witness if it's such a standard format?

 

[easyt65]

You had of course irrefutable evidence that criminal acts were committed here?
This is just ONE of what are undoubtedly hundreds of posts were you allege criminal behavior without having anything more then a news article to go on.

BS. Nice try to distract (without facts/links/whatever) from the main topic here / argument, which you are losing.

No criminal act proven - no evidence.
Changing facts.
Little to no details
4 witnesses who say it never happened.

Come up with real evidence or instead of 'Innocent until proven guilty' it will become 'Innocent because NOT proven guilty'....

 

[Freiheit]

This has gotten so bizarre the senate has gotten much more laughable than usual. Think about it this clown carnival is your government.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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

I'm sorry, Emily, but Im apathetic at this point. If she had proof, that's a different story. To come out with allegations after 36 years and not remember the year of what you were accusing someone of is ludicrous.

 

[easyt65]

Please give me all the times congress hired outside counsel to question a witness if it's such a standard format?

BWUHAHAHAHA!

Dems are foaming-at-the-mouth, shitting-themselves pissed right now because the GOP has just stripped the Democrats of the opportunity to claim 'the 11-man GOP committee was sexist, rude, demeaning, offensive, blah, blah, blah!

Instead Ford will be facing one of the best expert Sex Crimes Prosecutors in a Q&A session, a FEMALE Prosecutor, so any claims of sexist BS will be laughed out of existence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I'm gonna bet that she shows up....

The Left always makes it materially worthwhile for their pawns.


When McCarthy exposed Lattimore as a communist dupe, the Left rewarded him....


Lattimore was found to be a “conscious, articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy” by a unanimous Senate committee (William F. Buckley and Brent Bozell, McCarty and His Enemies, p. 274, quoting the Congressional Record) As far as his life being ruined, “When Lattimore was indicted, Johns Hopkins put him on leave with pay. He continued to have use of his office and secretary but taught no classes.” Owen Lattimore and the "Loss" of China "d0e11129"

He also lectured at Harvard.


Proven guilty, jailed for 44 months for perjury (the statute of limitations had run out on espionage), Alger Hiss, traitorous agent of Soviet espionage, the American left views Hiss as a hero. After leaving prison, he spoke at Princeton and was given a standing ovation. Bard College actually has the Alger Hiss Chair of Social Studies (Lawrence Helm's Blog: The Alger Hiss Chair at Bard College) In 1972, Massachusetts readmitted him to the bar. Liberals would never turn their backs on a man who spied for Stalin against America.


Anita Hill is doing OK, too.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

C'mon, IM2. You don't actually believe this bullshit, do you?

IM2 sexually assaulted me 30 years ago. I have my wife, my mother-in-law, my brother-in-law, and my 15-year-old daughter to corroborate that occurrence.

Of course, I didn't even know my wife or her family 30 years ago, and my daughter was over a decade late to the party, but YOU MUST BELIEVE THE ACCUSER.

This is complete horseshit.

Even if Kavanaugh did what Ford accuses, it is way too fucking late to bring this shit up now, only when it is politically expedient to do so.

Do you have any idea what this kind of bullshit does to REAL victims?

I hope the Senate votes to confirm today and puts an end to this communist shananagan.

 

[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- 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.

there you go!!!!

This has gotten so bizarre the senate has gotten much more laughable than usual. Think about it this clown carnival is your government.

and people wonder why trump got elected.

 

[forkup]

Please give me all the times congress hired outside counsel to question a witness if it's such a standard format?

BWUHAHAHAHA!

Dems are foaming-at-the-mouth, shitting-themselves pissed right now because the GOP has just stripped the Democrats of the opportunity to claim 'the 11-man GOP committee was sexist, rude, demeaning, offensive, blah, blah, blah!

Instead Ford will be facing one of the best expert Sex Crimes Prosecutors in a Q&A session, a FEMALE Prosecutor, so any claims of sexist BS will be laughed out of existence.

I'm not foaming at all. I was asking to substantiate the claim that the Republican's are following standard procedure. Something you just have conceded they are not. Thank you.

 

[forkup]

You had of course irrefutable evidence that criminal acts were committed here?
This is just ONE of what are undoubtedly hundreds of posts were you allege criminal behavior without having anything more then a news article to go on.

BS. Nice try to distract (without facts/links/whatever) from the main topic here / argument, which you are losing.

No criminal act proven - no evidence.
Changing facts.
Little to no details
4 witnesses who say it never happened.

Come up with real evidence or instead of 'Innocent until proven guilty' it will become 'Innocent because NOT proven guilty'....

Declaring victory here? Seems to me that I don't just make points, I substantiate them. People ask me links and I provide them. People ask me questions, I give answers. You guys don't, not you, not JC not anybody.

 

[Avatar4321]

Please give me all the times congress hired outside counsel to question a witness if it's such a standard format?

BWUHAHAHAHA!

Dems are foaming-at-the-mouth, shitting-themselves pissed right now because the GOP has just stripped the Democrats of the opportunity to claim 'the 11-man GOP committee was sexist, rude, demeaning, offensive, blah, blah, blah!

Instead Ford will be facing one of the best expert Sex Crimes Prosecutors in a Q&A session, a FEMALE Prosecutor, so any claims of sexist BS will be laughed out of existence.

No she won’t. She won’t be showing. If they were still negotiating last night then I doubt she is driving yet

 

[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- 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.

I'm gonna bet that she shows up....

The Left always makes it materially worthwhile for their pawns.


When McCarthy exposed Lattimore as a communist dupe, the Left rewarded him....


Lattimore was found to be a “conscious, articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy” by a unanimous Senate committee (William F. Buckley and Brent Bozell, McCarty and His Enemies, p. 274, quoting the Congressional Record) As far as his life being ruined, “When Lattimore was indicted, Johns Hopkins put him on leave with pay. He continued to have use of his office and secretary but taught no classes.” Owen Lattimore and the "Loss" of China "d0e11129"

He also lectured at Harvard.


Proven guilty, jailed for 44 months for perjury (the statute of limitations had run out on espionage), Alger Hiss, traitorous agent of Soviet espionage, the American left views Hiss as a hero. After leaving prison, he spoke at Princeton and was given a standing ovation. Bard College actually has the Alger Hiss Chair of Social Studies (Lawrence Helm's Blog: The Alger Hiss Chair at Bard College) In 1972, Massachusetts readmitted him to the bar. Liberals would never turn their backs on a man who spied for Stalin against America.


Anita Hill is doing OK, too.

two reasons I predicted what I did.

#1 her lawyer pushed back at the female prosecutor idea. It's why the left is going bat shit crazy over it. takes away the dis-credibility claim due to bias by men.

She would have to commit perjury to testify. I don't think that is something logical people want to endure. Since she can't back up her story, I believe the prosecutor will eat her up and I think she knows that. that will not be comfortable.

 

[jc456]

Please give me all the times congress hired outside counsel to question a witness if it's such a standard format?

BWUHAHAHAHA!

Dems are foaming-at-the-mouth, shitting-themselves pissed right now because the GOP has just stripped the Democrats of the opportunity to claim 'the 11-man GOP committee was sexist, rude, demeaning, offensive, blah, blah, blah!

Instead Ford will be facing one of the best expert Sex Crimes Prosecutors in a Q&A session, a FEMALE Prosecutor, so any claims of sexist BS will be laughed out of existence.

I'm not foaming at all. I was asking to substantiate the claim that the Republican's are following standard procedure. Something you just have conceded they are not. Thank you.

who cares? did or did not, ford's lawyer state that she wouldn't testify to the 11 men? They are accommodating the slut.

 

[easyt65]

I'm not foaming at all. I was asking to substantiate the claim that the Republican's are following standard procedure. Something you just have conceded they are not. Thank you.

There is no 'standard procedure' for dealing with vile liberal attempts to 'Herman Cain' good and decent people at the last minute while producing ZERO evidence and 4 witnesses who say it never happened!

And again, anyone who says they do not KNOW that no matter what the outcome of tomorrow's hearing was going to be that the Democrats were going to accuse the 11 GOP men of sexism, being rude, being insensitive, etc.... is lying through their damn teeth!

Its a low POS move, just like this entire 'Herman Cain'ing BS, that the Liberals were going to pull. THAT is why they are so pissed.

Democrats have claimed from the start that they just want to get to the truth.....BUT
- They claimed putting Ford under oath would be counter-productive to finding out the truth... WTF?!
- They are claiming that having one of the best Sex Crimes Prosecutors ask questions is a bad idea when trying to get to the truth in a sex crime allegation....?

REALLY? Bwuhahahaha......

MASSIVE FAIL!

 

[Freiheit]

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.
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.

there you go!!!!

This has gotten so bizarre the senate has gotten much more laughable than usual. Think about it this clown carnival is your government.

and people wonder why trump got elected.

I didn't mention the general electorate both major parties and its' Brocolli IQ equivilancy. Neither of the so called "major" parties have shown anything more than a total lack of intelligence.

 

[jc456]

I'm not foaming at all. I was asking to substantiate the claim that the Republican's are following standard procedure. Something you just have conceded they are not. Thank you.

There is no 'standard procedure' for dealing with vile liberal attempts to 'Herman Cain' good and decent people at the last minute while producing ZERO evidence and 4 witnesses who say it never happened!

And again, anyone who says they do not KNOW that no matter what the outcome of tomorrow's hearing was going to be that the Democrats were going to accuse the 11 GOP men of sexism, being rude, being insensitive, etc.... is lying through their damn teeth!

Its a low POS move, just like this entire 'Herman Cain'ing BS, that the Liberals were going to pull. THAT is why they are so pissed.

Democrats have claimed from the start that they just want to get to the truth.....BUT
- They claimed putting Ford under oath would be counter-productive to finding out the truth... WTF?!
- They are claiming that having one of the best Sex Crimes Prosecutors ask questions is a bad idea when trying to get to the truth in a sex crime allegation....?

REALLY? Bwuhahahaha......

MASSIVE FAIL!

they've already shown that hand by their reaction. Bob Corker, as much as I can't stand the man said it correctly yesterday, genius move by the GOP.