Merged -- Kavanaugh/Ford Opinion and Comment Threads for 30 Sept.

[DGS49]

Every competent litigator knows...the ONLY time you ask a liar whether they are certain of what they just testified to is when you have PROOF that they are lying. Otherwise, LIARS ALWAYS SAY THEY ARE 100% CERTAIN. Otherwise, what's the point of lying?

This is not evidence that she is lying, but just observing that the "100%" response that the Leftists are so thrilled with is absolutely meaningless. Indeed, any real, normal person who was telling the truth to the best of her recollection (35 fucking years ago), would say "I'm almost certain."

I'm not certain of anything that happened that long ago.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

She's a wolf in sheep's clothing hiding behind a squeaky voiced fake vulnerable persona.

Exactly! she is a liar!

She deserves an Oscar.

Omg she’s ugly!

WYEHO?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

ignorance of legal fact;

ac·cu·sa·tion
ˌakyəˈzāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
   "they found evidence of his plotting"

For all the board retards let's be crystal clear.

ACCUSATIONS =/= EVIDENCE

Let's stay the fuck on topic, Gramps! Your OP was NOT concerned with a comparison of ACCUSATION vs. EVIDENCE so just drop the Straw man comparison derailing shtick. Your OP dealt solely with the subject of EVIDENCE & EVIDENCE ONLY!

Now who were to be considering the testimony of the two giving that testimony at the hearing last Thursday on the Sept 27th? The Senate JUDICIARY Committee. They are legally and Constitutionally charged, among other things among their duties, with matters regarding Federal courts and judges and Judicial proceedings, both civil and criminal, generally.

That's why there are so many former attorney's, former prosecutors and former judges on that committee. When that committee is taking testimony from folks before the committee in chambers or in public, they are responsible for evaluating and judging that testimony on its content given their responsibility of a thumbs up or down recommendation is their end product. That should be obvious as Hell, so keep that fact fixed in you mind.

Now recall the American Bar Association, the Professional bunch who judge the performance of Judges defines, once again to get it locked into your skull;

"Evidence - Information presented in testimony or in documents that is used by the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other." [Emphasis Added]
~~ Glossary ~~

Let's also consider the legal definition of testimony which the two figures at the center of this mess gave at the hearing last Thursday on the Sept 27th from the Wexford legal dictionary;
"Testimony - Oral or written evidence given by a competent witness, under oath, at trial or in an affidavit or deposition."
~~ testimony ~~

Now to the transcripts of the hearing last Thursday on the Sept 27th. During the opening comments by Grassly, he made reference to these very two items. Here are some snips of his introductory comments;

"Throughout this period, we did not know about the Ranking Member’s secret evidence."

"My staff made eight requests for evidence from attorneys for Ms. Ramirez and six requests for evidence from the attorney for Ms. Swetnick."

"My staff has tried to secure testimony and evidence from attorneys for both Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick."

"The testimony we will hear today concerns allegations of sexual assault."

"Today’s hearing was scheduled in close consultation with Dr. Ford’s attorneys, and her testimony will be the subject of this hearing."

"My staff made repeated requests to interview Dr. Ford during the past eleven days, even volunteering to fly to California to take her testimony."
~~ https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09-27-18 Grassley Statement.pdf ~~

Hopefully, you understand what testimony is in a legal context, because Kavanaugh and Dr Ford both gave testimony UNDER OATH before they both sat to give their testimony, their evidence! Give up your silly, childish word play and face up to your error like the man your are!

Stay on topic???


This is the FIRST POST. The opening post. My post...

She offered ZERO evidence. Is appearing meek all it takes?



Don't get pissed off because I made you look stupid. And have no doubt, you got schooled. Not because I'm some genius but because you are a clueless moron.

PS. Typing all that bullshit doesn't make you look intelligent. Speaking from your mind with your own thoughts is how you convey ernest and thought out posts. Any moron can plagiarize off the net

Stay on topic???


This is the FIRST POST. The opening post. My post...

She offered ZERO evidence. Is appearing meek all it takes?

I know what your OP was or are to too poor to pay attention to the fact that I quoted it several times? You were the one trying to change the predicate which was your OP, which I kept dragging you back to, Gramps...you're not fooling any honest folk with that canape of horseshit!

Don't get pissed off because I made you look stupid. And have no doubt, you got schooled. Not because I'm some genius but because you are a clueless moron.

You're trying to get that pile of crap off the ground, while not commenting on a single word of my last post? And you call ME the moron?

PS. Typing all that bullshit doesn't make you look intelligent. Speaking from your mind with your own thoughts is how you convey ernest and thought out posts. Any moron can plagiarize off the net

Again not a mention about the content of my last post to which you have responded! The reason is obvious! You can't refute the content or the logic of it. You should learn if you're going to plant your feet and make a claim like you did, that Dr Ford "offered ZERO evidence" in your words evidence when YOU, Gramps, don't know the fucking legal definition of evidence, PUTZ!

Now regarding your accusation of plagiarism, you prove that fucking lie of yours you fucking slime ball! I was wrong the other day about giving you the benefit of the doubt about being an honest person and not a liar, but never again. From now on, when you are wrong, and when you lie, it'll be full tilt boogie open season on your dishonest ass.

Now take another lap around the goal posts Lucy in your faux elation of your faux victory.

I'm done with you so do us both a favor and stop quoting me. K? Thanks

I'm done with you so do us both a favor and stop quoting me. K? Thanks

I do that which I choose. Your wishes won't impact my choices one iota one way or the other.

I do note that you fired a round at my character by lying calling me a plagiarist, but when I join you in that and fire back with facts, you wave your white flag and head for cover, yet still without a word to yet another post. Bloody cheap shot coward!

Run Forest, Run! Bye Bye, Boi!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Can the FBI use this in their search for whomever leaked that memo? I hear that they will find the leaker.

Just check DI FI's depends, I am sure the FBI can find a leak there....Bwaaahhhhhaaaahhhhhhaaaaaaa.

 

[B. Kidd]

Ford's logic: Tis better to die than be laughed at.
This is what Leftists want you to believe. Really?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

ac·cu·sa·tion
ˌakyəˈzāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
   "they found evidence of his plotting"

For all the board retards let's be crystal clear.

ACCUSATIONS =/= EVIDENCE

Let's stay the fuck on topic, Gramps! Your OP was NOT concerned with a comparison of ACCUSATION vs. EVIDENCE so just drop the Straw man comparison derailing shtick. Your OP dealt solely with the subject of EVIDENCE & EVIDENCE ONLY!

Now who were to be considering the testimony of the two giving that testimony at the hearing last Thursday on the Sept 27th? The Senate JUDICIARY Committee. They are legally and Constitutionally charged, among other things among their duties, with matters regarding Federal courts and judges and Judicial proceedings, both civil and criminal, generally.

That's why there are so many former attorney's, former prosecutors and former judges on that committee. When that committee is taking testimony from folks before the committee in chambers or in public, they are responsible for evaluating and judging that testimony on its content given their responsibility of a thumbs up or down recommendation is their end product. That should be obvious as Hell, so keep that fact fixed in you mind.

Now recall the American Bar Association, the Professional bunch who judge the performance of Judges defines, once again to get it locked into your skull;

"Evidence - Information presented in testimony or in documents that is used by the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other." [Emphasis Added]
~~ Glossary ~~

Let's also consider the legal definition of testimony which the two figures at the center of this mess gave at the hearing last Thursday on the Sept 27th from the Wexford legal dictionary;
"Testimony - Oral or written evidence given by a competent witness, under oath, at trial or in an affidavit or deposition."
~~ testimony ~~

Now to the transcripts of the hearing last Thursday on the Sept 27th. During the opening comments by Grassly, he made reference to these very two items. Here are some snips of his introductory comments;

"Throughout this period, we did not know about the Ranking Member’s secret evidence."

"My staff made eight requests for evidence from attorneys for Ms. Ramirez and six requests for evidence from the attorney for Ms. Swetnick."

"My staff has tried to secure testimony and evidence from attorneys for both Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick."

"The testimony we will hear today concerns allegations of sexual assault."

"Today’s hearing was scheduled in close consultation with Dr. Ford’s attorneys, and her testimony will be the subject of this hearing."

"My staff made repeated requests to interview Dr. Ford during the past eleven days, even volunteering to fly to California to take her testimony."
~~ https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09-27-18 Grassley Statement.pdf ~~

Hopefully, you understand what testimony is in a legal context, because Kavanaugh and Dr Ford both gave testimony UNDER OATH before they both sat to give their testimony, their evidence! Give up your silly, childish word play and face up to your error like the man your are!

Stay on topic???


This is the FIRST POST. The opening post. My post...

She offered ZERO evidence. Is appearing meek all it takes?



Don't get pissed off because I made you look stupid. And have no doubt, you got schooled. Not because I'm some genius but because you are a clueless moron.

PS. Typing all that bullshit doesn't make you look intelligent. Speaking from your mind with your own thoughts is how you convey ernest and thought out posts. Any moron can plagiarize off the net

Stay on topic???


This is the FIRST POST. The opening post. My post...

She offered ZERO evidence. Is appearing meek all it takes?

I know what your OP was or are to too poor to pay attention to the fact that I quoted it several times? You were the one trying to change the predicate which was your OP, which I kept dragging you back to, Gramps...you're not fooling any honest folk with that canape of horseshit!

Don't get pissed off because I made you look stupid. And have no doubt, you got schooled. Not because I'm some genius but because you are a clueless moron.

You're trying to get that pile of crap off the ground, while not commenting on a single word of my last post? And you call ME the moron?

PS. Typing all that bullshit doesn't make you look intelligent. Speaking from your mind with your own thoughts is how you convey ernest and thought out posts. Any moron can plagiarize off the net

Again not a mention about the content of my last post to which you have responded! The reason is obvious! You can't refute the content or the logic of it. You should learn if you're going to plant your feet and make a claim like you did, that Dr Ford "offered ZERO evidence" in your words evidence when YOU, Gramps, don't know the fucking legal definition of evidence, PUTZ!

Now regarding your accusation of plagiarism, you prove that fucking lie of yours you fucking slime ball! I was wrong the other day about giving you the benefit of the doubt about being an honest person and not a liar, but never again. From now on, when you are wrong, and when you lie, it'll be full tilt boogie open season on your dishonest ass.

Now take another lap around the goal posts Lucy in your faux elation of your faux victory.

I'm done with you so do us both a favor and stop quoting me. K? Thanks

I'm done with you so do us both a favor and stop quoting me. K? Thanks

I do that which I choose. Your wishes won't impact my choices one iota one way or the other.

I do note that you fired a round at my character by lying calling me a plagiarist, but when I join you in that and fire back with facts, you wave your white flag and head for cover, yet still without a word to yet another post. Bloody cheap shot coward!

Run Forest, Run! Bye Bye, Boi!

 

[Missourian]

Got to listen to three more liberal cocksucker on 60 minutes.

Had to turn it off, before something else was broken.

This is what I get for listening to the leftist propaganda of the American media.

Why WHY would you guys subject yourself to that bullshit?

Here, a much more realistic programming substitute....

Glutton for punishment.

 

[chops_]

The Chinese leaked the memo. Isn't it that obvious?

Hint: Chinese Spy

Attack Ad Hits Democrats For Kavanaugh Opposition: ‘Stop At Nothing To Smear Him’

 

[Intolerant]

Bottom line she’s a lying hag along with her cohorts. Nothing but a lying piece of garbage.

 

[MaryL]

I wonder what the point is. Appoint someone else, then. Move on. This is like a dog chasing it's tail.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Got to listen to three more liberal cocksucker on 60 minutes.

Had to turn it off, before something else was broken.

This is what I get for listening to the leftist propaganda of the American media.

Why WHY would you guys subject yourself to that bullshit?

Here, a much more realistic programming substitute....

Glutton for punishment.

I'm watching an old Godzilla classic. It's at least more grounded in reality

 

[Tilly]

Perhaps we need to look at other candidates, this is an exercise in futility.

Giving in will only encourage them.

Encourage WHOM?

Who do you think?
The DEMS.

 

[Compost]

Wow. Just wow. She didn't leak it, she kept it confidential! Well, until just before the vote was scheduled. Then she said STOP! I've got a victim to out !

 

[Yarddog]

I thought Dr. Ford's presentation was moving and credible until.....Until she said she was 100% certain it was Bret Kavanaugh. 100%. 100%? Wait. How well did she know teen-age Kavanaugh? By face? By reputation? They went to different schools thirty miles apart, hung out with different groups, had different friends. Did she know him before the party? Did they ever talk before, after? Did she meet two guys she has never known before at a party thirty miles from home and end up with both of them in a bedroom after drinking and wearing a bathing suit? Why would you do such a thing unless they dragged you in there? How does she know it was Kavanaugh if they never met before, never been friends? Did he introduce himself at the party? Why would only Kavanaugh and Judge be invited to a pool party? Were you being set up by a friend? Who? How many conversations at the party did she have with him before going into a bedroom with both boys? With all these unknowns, how could she be 100% sure from an incident 36 years ago it was a boy she never knew prior? Can you remember the face or name of anyone you met only once after thirty six years? That's when I knew.

Very good point. Friends of Cavenaugh including women who knew him said they were not really aware of Ford, she wasn't a friend that hung around with the group. Also, in the error about there being 4 guys in the room, Ford said her Therapist got mixed up.... the correction was there were only four other people in the party, .... not four guys in the room. This seems Really odd to me. How many parties has anyone gone to where there are only 5 people? and so if she hardly knew Cav and Judge... who were the other two people? and who was it who invited Ford to the party in the first place? It had to be a friend of her's .. so where is this friend and why wouldnt she remember that if there were only 4 other people at the party?

And I have to keep reminding myself, there is a lot at stake politically and just because she is a woman... it doesnt mean she can put on an act in order to take one for the team. And we can remember women like Tawana Brawley and Mangum the lady who accused the Duke Lacross players came across as convincing as well.... poor victims assaulted by racists.

I think the FBI investigation needs to investigate Ford just as much as it is investigating CAV

 

[ColonelAngus]

Didn’t OJ Simpson say he was 100% not guilty at his plea hearing?

 

[BS Filter]

I guarantee you that she was coached to say "100%" when asked how sure she was. If she would have said "very sure", then she could have been attacked. By saying "100%", that leaves no room for doubting her testimony.

 

[Geaux4it]

I can't believe how clueless she was about so many things. For sure, for sure,,,,,,,.... gag me with a spoon...... I wanted to get the information out but didn't know how to contact my congressman.

Dingbat alert

-Geaux

 

[basquebromance]

Ford has a problem. there's something wrong with her. she is a bad and sick person

 

[ColonelAngus]

It’s interesting how the Dems really did not try at all to validate the truthfulness of her story.

Allowing her to say, “100%”without any probing questions was a silly display of partisanship. They don’t want the truth, they want Cavanaugh to not get confirmed, no matter what.

No way this will all be wrapped up in a week. Dems will continue to stall.

 

[WillowTree]