Kavanaugh Accuser Won't Testify

[Asclepias]

She won't testify under oath because she is not an idiot, lying skank? Yes idiot, no.

She would likely be brought up on perjury charges, as she has changed her story so much, hard to keep that many lies straight and under oath is serious stuff

This political play looks to be winding down in failure, and it has absolutely hurt democrat chances for the midterms in purple areas where it matters

how did she change her story? I missed that part

Me too.

How many boys were in the room?

Last I heard was 4 including Kav.

She has also claimed just 2 in the room

I would have to investigate that.

 

[dcbl]

First the woman has changed her story and claims there was only one other person there and he has said he doesn't recall the incident the accuser is talking about and as I already stated it would have been known and looked into if Diane Feinstein had not sat on the letter she was in possession of until she thought making it public would benefit her and the Democrats in the midterms. Republicans see this for exactly what it is a political power play and pretty obvious one at that.

Did she change her story or did someone get it wrong the first time? No it wouldnt have been known and looked into because she didnt want to go public with the accusations at first. Not much they are going to be able to get out of a unwilling witness to a non crime they had no jurisdiction to investigate.

I see so no one wanted to go public when there would have been time to do an actual investigation but now right before Kavanaugh was going to confirmed to the Court and just a little over a month before the midterms these same people now want to come foreward and have delays and investigations. That is plain as it gets partisan horseshit.

Whats the hurry? If they investigate it immediately its over before the elections.

How do you quickly investigate something that allegedly happened almost 40 years ago? If they did investigate and quickly came back before the midterms and said they could find nothing to support the womans claim the left would claim they ended the investigation to soon and need to investigate more.

You involve the FBI. They can mobilize resources that would have your head spinning.

Bullshit

There is nothing to do but interview them both and Kav's buddy

Investigation over, now decide which is a more credible witness

Unless she can magically remember details she claims to have forgotten

 

[Bush92]

She won't testify under oath because she is not an idiot, lying skank? Yes idiot, no.

She would likely be brought up on perjury charges, as she has changed her story so much, hard to keep that many lies straight and under oath is serious stuff

This political play looks to be winding down in failure, and it has absolutely hurt democrat chances for the midterms in purple areas where it matters

how did she change her story? I missed that part

Me too.

How many boys were in the room?

Last I heard was 4 including Kav.

She has also claimed just 2 in the room

For now. Get this nut on the stand and she will say Buddha and Vincent Van Gogh was there too...

 

[blackhawk]

What they are saying is let the woman have her fair say. Let the accused face his accuser. Then if you want an investigation go ahead and have it. Why does this accuser call the shots? what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Thats a bunch of bullshit and you know it. Its going to be a dog and pony show that will go something like this.....

"You sexually assaulted me"
"No I didnt."
"Yes you did"
"No i didnt"

Ok people. Confirmation will be held tomorrow since we cant tell who is lying.

Really? I dont think so. After 35 years theres even less chance the FBI can prove a damn thing. At least the woman can confront him to his face then if he cracks people will make a decision off of that.
What exactly is the FBI suppossed to come up with? even if they were both at the same party, it proves nothing unless you have some real evidence. After 35 years all it comes down to is both of their words.
It's just a judgement call people have to make.

Unless you have other women coming forward... something in his rulings that points to a defect in his character.. it all comes down to who is more believable.

All they have to prove is one of them is lying. In Kavs case he said he was never at the party which is odd because she cant remember which party.

Its hard to prove that being Incorrect after 35 years is actually Lying though.

If you emphatically say you were not at the party she was and its found out you were then you are definitely lying. Like I said, how can you deny you were at a party that she doesnt even remember was the one in question?

How can one accuse someone of doing some thing to them at a party if they cant remember which party it was?

 

[blackhawk]

First the woman has changed her story and claims there was only one other person there and he has said he doesn't recall the incident the accuser is talking about and as I already stated it would have been known and looked into if Diane Feinstein had not sat on the letter she was in possession of until she thought making it public would benefit her and the Democrats in the midterms. Republicans see this for exactly what it is a political power play and pretty obvious one at that.

Did she change her story or did someone get it wrong the first time? No it wouldnt have been known and looked into because she didnt want to go public with the accusations at first. Not much they are going to be able to get out of a unwilling witness to a non crime they had no jurisdiction to investigate.

I see so no one wanted to go public when there would have been time to do an actual investigation but now right before Kavanaugh was going to confirmed to the Court and just a little over a month before the midterms these same people now want to come foreward and have delays and investigations. That is plain as it gets partisan horseshit.

Whats the hurry? If they investigate it immediately its over before the elections.

How do you quickly investigate something that allegedly happened almost 40 years ago? If they did investigate and quickly came back before the midterms and said they could find nothing to support the womans claim the left would claim they ended the investigation to soon and need to investigate more.

You involve the FBI. They can mobilize resources that would have your head spinning. Doesnt matter what the dems claim. It was investigated and they dont have the votes to stop the confirmation.

The Dems know they don't have the votes to stop it that is why the plan here is to try and drag this past the midterms in the hopes they get control of the Senate.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Drumpf can direct the FBI to investigate this.

I dont want him confirmed because he is a sexual predator.

Save it for the uninformed. You're trying to convince people who knows what's what. You come off as a fool.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats a bunch of bullshit and you know it. Its going to be a dog and pony show that will go something like this.....

"You sexually assaulted me"
"No I didnt."
"Yes you did"
"No i didnt"

Ok people. Confirmation will be held tomorrow since we cant tell who is lying.

Really? I dont think so. After 35 years theres even less chance the FBI can prove a damn thing. At least the woman can confront him to his face then if he cracks people will make a decision off of that.
What exactly is the FBI suppossed to come up with? even if they were both at the same party, it proves nothing unless you have some real evidence. After 35 years all it comes down to is both of their words.
It's just a judgement call people have to make.

Unless you have other women coming forward... something in his rulings that points to a defect in his character.. it all comes down to who is more believable.

All they have to prove is one of them is lying. In Kavs case he said he was never at the party which is odd because she cant remember which party.

Its hard to prove that being Incorrect after 35 years is actually Lying though.

If you emphatically say you were not at the party she was and its found out you were then you are definitely lying. Like I said, how can you deny you were at a party that she doesnt even remember was the one in question?

How can one accuse someone of doing some thing to them at a party if they cant remember which party it was?

Pretty easy. Say you go to a party and you get into a fight. Someone kicks your ass and you leave humiliated. 40 years later you remember you got your ass kicked but you are foggy on exactly which party it was. Do you remember all the parties you went to? I know for dam sure I dont.

 

[Asclepias]

Did she change her story or did someone get it wrong the first time? No it wouldnt have been known and looked into because she didnt want to go public with the accusations at first. Not much they are going to be able to get out of a unwilling witness to a non crime they had no jurisdiction to investigate.

I see so no one wanted to go public when there would have been time to do an actual investigation but now right before Kavanaugh was going to confirmed to the Court and just a little over a month before the midterms these same people now want to come foreward and have delays and investigations. That is plain as it gets partisan horseshit.

Whats the hurry? If they investigate it immediately its over before the elections.

How do you quickly investigate something that allegedly happened almost 40 years ago? If they did investigate and quickly came back before the midterms and said they could find nothing to support the womans claim the left would claim they ended the investigation to soon and need to investigate more.

You involve the FBI. They can mobilize resources that would have your head spinning. Doesnt matter what the dems claim. It was investigated and they dont have the votes to stop the confirmation.

The Dems know they don't have the votes to stop it that is why the plan here is to try and drag this past the midterms in the hopes they get control of the Senate.

The problem with that train of thought is that not only do the dems not have the votes, they dont have the power to drag anything out past the midterms.

 

[Asclepias]

Drumpf can direct the FBI to investigate this.

I dont want him confirmed because he is a sexual predator.

Save it for the uninformed. You're trying to convince people who knows what's what. You come off as a fool.

No. I posted that because someone asked me a question. If you werent so retarded you would have figured that out.

 

[Crixus]

Watching Tucker Carlson and he announced breaking news....the false accuser of Kavanaugh has sent word she will not testify until after the FBI conducts an investigation into her claim....making this a scam as the democrats do their best to drag this out till after the election when they believe they will win the Senate.....

Republicans...you better go out in vast numbers and vote in every Republican you can....even if they are assholes...now is not the time to be picky about the morons in the Republican party, he morons in the democrat party are far more dangerous.

I don’t get why democrats aren’t pissed. This shit can and will happen to them to.

 

[blackhawk]

Really? I dont think so. After 35 years theres even less chance the FBI can prove a damn thing. At least the woman can confront him to his face then if he cracks people will make a decision off of that.
What exactly is the FBI suppossed to come up with? even if they were both at the same party, it proves nothing unless you have some real evidence. After 35 years all it comes down to is both of their words.
It's just a judgement call people have to make.

Unless you have other women coming forward... something in his rulings that points to a defect in his character.. it all comes down to who is more believable.

All they have to prove is one of them is lying. In Kavs case he said he was never at the party which is odd because she cant remember which party.

Its hard to prove that being Incorrect after 35 years is actually Lying though.

If you emphatically say you were not at the party she was and its found out you were then you are definitely lying. Like I said, how can you deny you were at a party that she doesnt even remember was the one in question?

How can one accuse someone of doing some thing to them at a party if they cant remember which party it was?

Pretty easy. Say you go to a party and you get into a fight. Someone kicks your ass and you leave humiliated. 40 years later you remember you got your ass kicked but you are foggy on exactly which party it was. Do you remember all the parties you went to?

No I don't reme,ber every party I went to but then again if someone kicked my ass at a party I wouldn't be trying to have them investigated by the FBI over it 40 years later. If you are foggy on which party you could accusing the wrong person so maybe just maybe you shouldn't be making accusations unless you are 100% sure.

 

[blackhawk]

I see so no one wanted to go public when there would have been time to do an actual investigation but now right before Kavanaugh was going to confirmed to the Court and just a little over a month before the midterms these same people now want to come foreward and have delays and investigations. That is plain as it gets partisan horseshit.

Whats the hurry? If they investigate it immediately its over before the elections.

How do you quickly investigate something that allegedly happened almost 40 years ago? If they did investigate and quickly came back before the midterms and said they could find nothing to support the womans claim the left would claim they ended the investigation to soon and need to investigate more.

You involve the FBI. They can mobilize resources that would have your head spinning. Doesnt matter what the dems claim. It was investigated and they dont have the votes to stop the confirmation.

The Dems know they don't have the votes to stop it that is why the plan here is to try and drag this past the midterms in the hopes they get control of the Senate.

The problem with that train of thought is that not only do the dems not have the votes, they dont have the power to drag anything out past the midterms.

If they can use public opinion to keep an investigation going on they can.

 

[Asclepias]

Whats the hurry? If they investigate it immediately its over before the elections.

How do you quickly investigate something that allegedly happened almost 40 years ago? If they did investigate and quickly came back before the midterms and said they could find nothing to support the womans claim the left would claim they ended the investigation to soon and need to investigate more.

You involve the FBI. They can mobilize resources that would have your head spinning. Doesnt matter what the dems claim. It was investigated and they dont have the votes to stop the confirmation.

The Dems know they don't have the votes to stop it that is why the plan here is to try and drag this past the midterms in the hopes they get control of the Senate.

The problem with that train of thought is that not only do the dems not have the votes, they dont have the power to drag anything out past the midterms.

If they can use public opinion to keep an investigation going on they can.

Public opinion cant stop anything. All the repubs have to do is go through the motions and unless he is lying he will be confirmed. I just saw where she said she wont testify until the FBI investigates. That pretty much seals the deal for the confirmation happening next week.

 

[Asclepias]

All they have to prove is one of them is lying. In Kavs case he said he was never at the party which is odd because she cant remember which party.

Its hard to prove that being Incorrect after 35 years is actually Lying though.

If you emphatically say you were not at the party she was and its found out you were then you are definitely lying. Like I said, how can you deny you were at a party that she doesnt even remember was the one in question?

How can one accuse someone of doing some thing to them at a party if they cant remember which party it was?

Pretty easy. Say you go to a party and you get into a fight. Someone kicks your ass and you leave humiliated. 40 years later you remember you got your ass kicked but you are foggy on exactly which party it was. Do you remember all the parties you went to?

No I don't reme,ber every party I went to but then again if someone kicked my ass at a party I wouldn't be trying to have them investigated by the FBI over it 40 years later. If you are foggy on which party you could accusing the wrong person so maybe just maybe you shouldn't be making accusations unless you are 100% sure.

I dont have to be 100% sure of which party I got my ass kicked. I just know I got may ass kicked at a party. In her case she was sexually assaulted by a potential SC judge. Is that the guy you repubs want on the SC? You can be honest. I know most of you have low standards.

 

[Bush92]

Ford is a political operative...just a kook...like disgraced FBI agent Strok.

 

[Asclepias]

Ford is a political operative...just a kook...like disgraced FBI agent Strok.

Yeah thats smart. Give Kav the confirmation on a silver platter by refusing to testify. She must be a rookie.

 

[Bush92]

Ford is a political operative...just a kook...like disgraced FBI agent Strok.

Yeah thats smart. Give Kav the confirmation on a silver platter by refusing to testify. She must be a rookie.

Testify about what? Nothing ever happened.

 

[Rustic]

Now the woman want testified unless the FBI investigate!

Crazy!

She does't remember anything! But she was there! The other person refuses to testify!

Plum bat shit crazy!

She should be locked up for being a loopy kunt...

 

[Yarddog]

Its hard to prove that being Incorrect after 35 years is actually Lying though.

If you emphatically say you were not at the party she was and its found out you were then you are definitely lying. Like I said, how can you deny you were at a party that she doesnt even remember was the one in question?

How can one accuse someone of doing some thing to them at a party if they cant remember which party it was?

Pretty easy. Say you go to a party and you get into a fight. Someone kicks your ass and you leave humiliated. 40 years later you remember you got your ass kicked but you are foggy on exactly which party it was. Do you remember all the parties you went to?

No I don't reme,ber every party I went to but then again if someone kicked my ass at a party I wouldn't be trying to have them investigated by the FBI over it 40 years later. If you are foggy on which party you could accusing the wrong person so maybe just maybe you shouldn't be making accusations unless you are 100% sure.

I dont have to be 100% sure of which party I got my ass kicked. I just know I got may ass kicked at a party. In her case she was sexually assaulted by a potential SC judge. Is that the guy you repubs want on the SC? You can be honest. I know most of you have low standards.

An accusation makes someone guilty? You say it as if its a fact. What is a fact is that all the Democrats decided this guy would be rejected before the hearings ever started.Character assasination is just part of by all means necessary. thats the democrat SOP, put the burden of proof on the accused.

even if the guy did grope the girl while drunk as a teen. It takes a lot more than that to lable someone a sexual predator and destroy their life and reputation.Which is what this does . Even if he did that, and they were all drinking including most likely the girl as well, there would be no real intent proven. Look at his body of work. again, where are all the other women coming forward? Why was he only a sexual predator to one girl? And your saying people here have low standards? He had already been on a high court for 10 years so there should be plenty to actually judge him by.

 

[Vel]

Ford is a political operative...just a kook...like disgraced FBI agent Strok.

Yeah thats smart. Give Kav the confirmation on a silver platter by refusing to testify. She must be a rookie.

Republicans have simply called her bluff. The democrat plan was to have a nice lengthy investigation to push this nomination beyond the mid-terms. This woman doesn't want to testify under oath. Defamation is a civil issue but perjury is criminal.