I no longer believe the accusers

[LordBrownTrout]

And they care what you think because......?

And we don't care what they think.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

And they care what you think because......?

Thanks to democrat scum, women everywhere are going to have a much harder time proving anything. Thanks demoscum.

Oh really?? So lets get this straight. The GOP has an all male judiciary committee to cowardly to even question Ford, who now twice has chosen to elect someone on the Supreme Court despite credible accusations of sexual misconduct. But the Democrats are to blame? You know, elections do have consequences like you all like to remind us. Actions when elected have consequences to. Man up to them. The Democrats choose to believe, you choose to ignore.

Nobody "proved" anything, you simply choose to believe the lies.

It was proved pretty definitively that Ford had never met Kavanaugh.

 

[Pogo]

And they care what you think because......?

Thanks to democrat scum, women everywhere are going to have a much harder time proving anything. Thanks demoscum.

Oh really?? So lets get this straight. The GOP has an all male judiciary committee to cowardly to even question Ford, who now twice has chosen to elect someone on the Supreme Court despite credible accusations of sexual misconduct. But the Democrats are to blame? You know, elections do have consequences like you all like to remind us. Actions when elected have consequences to. Man up to them. The Democrats choose to believe, you choose to ignore.

Nobody "proved" anything, you simply choose to believe the lies.

It was proved pretty definitively that Ford had never met Kavanaugh.

Was it now.

Linkie?

 

[miketx]

And they care what you think because......?

Thanks to democrat scum, women everywhere are going to have a much harder time proving anything. Thanks demoscum.

Oh really?? So lets get this straight. The GOP has an all male judiciary committee to cowardly to even question Ford, who now twice has chosen to elect someone on the Supreme Court despite credible accusations of sexual misconduct. But the Democrats are to blame? You know, elections do have consequences like you all like to remind us. Actions when elected have consequences to. Man up to them. The Democrats choose to believe, you choose to ignore.

Nobody "proved" anything, you simply choose to believe the lies.

It was proved pretty definitively that Ford had never met Kavanaugh.

Was it now.

Linkie?

Deny this one.

 

[forkup]

And they care what you think because......?

You obviously dont care that future women are less likely to be believed when it comes to sexual assault.

Hmmmmm.....is there a reason?

I asked once already - what makes you (all) imagine that? Did Fox insinuate it or.... ?

The more women who make false accusations the more likely the real claims will be ignored.
It's a simple concept,but I'm not surprised you dont get it.

How do you asses in this case the accusations are false?

The fact she couldnt come up with the place,the time,how she got there,how she got home and no corroborating witnesses.
Along with the fact she lied about being afraid to fly and that she'd never talked to anyone about polygraph tests.
Add the fact she claimed her mental problems were brought on by here house remodel in 12 when it actually happened in 08.
This bitch is a walking contradiction and anyone who believes her shit is a partisan fucktard.

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

 

[miketx]

You obviously dont care that future women are less likely to be believed when it comes to sexual assault.

Hmmmmm.....is there a reason?

I asked once already - what makes you (all) imagine that? Did Fox insinuate it or.... ?

The more women who make false accusations the more likely the real claims will be ignored.
It's a simple concept,but I'm not surprised you dont get it.

How do you asses in this case the accusations are false?

The fact she couldnt come up with the place,the time,how she got there,how she got home and no corroborating witnesses.
Along with the fact she lied about being afraid to fly and that she'd never talked to anyone about polygraph tests.
Add the fact she claimed her mental problems were brought on by here house remodel in 12 when it actually happened in 08.
This bitch is a walking contradiction and anyone who believes her shit is a partisan fucktard.

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

Look troll, someone may have assaulted her, but just because you can't prove it's Kavanaugh, that doesn't stop you from wanting see it laid on him.

 

[Doc1]

You obviously dont care that future women are less likely to be believed when it comes to sexual assault.

Hmmmmm.....is there a reason?

I asked once already - what makes you (all) imagine that? Did Fox insinuate it or.... ?

The more women who make false accusations the more likely the real claims will be ignored.
It's a simple concept,but I'm not surprised you dont get it.

How do you asses in this case the accusations are false?

The fact she couldnt come up with the place,the time,how she got there,how she got home and no corroborating witnesses.
Along with the fact she lied about being afraid to fly and that she'd never talked to anyone about polygraph tests.
Add the fact she claimed her mental problems were brought on by here house remodel in 12 when it actually happened in 08.
This bitch is a walking contradiction and anyone who believes her shit is a partisan fucktard.

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

Meaning she couldn't prove shit but you believe her anyway because Kavanaugh is a poo poo head. Good lord.

 

[Pogo]

These women who have came forward to accuse Brett Kavanaugh are all connected and all are part of the "Resist" movement.

All of them lied and need to be prosecuted and receive the maximum penalty as do their lawyers who are also connected and the Democrats who put this all together.

What these people have done is beyond disgusting and they need to be punished.

I hope they get what they deserve and if you are one of those who "Believe" these women, you are the problem and there is no respect or credibility is completely gone. Your status is now that of a partisan hack who deserves hell.

Okay ---- "prosecuted" and "penalized" for ....................................................................... what exactly?

You did hear we don't burn witches any more, right? Please tell me you heard that.

Perjury, dumbass.

Oh look at Finger-boy, coming out to white-knight for an OP who's too skeered to answer the question put to him.

Tell ya what Fingers. Let's pretend you're the OP, since he ran away, and that this is your point. Ready?

"Perjury" requires lying under oath. Being under oath is easy to establish; now where's the "lying"?


Huh Finger-boy?

Where?

Sorry you took this white-knight job now?

 

[forkup]

Oh really?? So lets get this straight. The GOP has an all male judiciary committee to cowardly to even question Ford, who now twice has chosen to elect someone on the Supreme Court despite credible accusations of sexual misconduct. But the Democrats are to blame? You know, elections do have consequences like you all like to remind us. Actions when elected have consequences to. Man up to them. The Democrats choose to believe, you choose to ignore.

Nobody "proved" anything, you simply choose to believe the lies.

Again how do you know that, besides your opinion?

If one cannot prove one assertions said assertions by definition false.

No then they are by definition unproven. There is a difference. I can't proof there is life on other planets, yet that does not mean it's proof that there isn't. It's called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

 

[forkup]

I asked once already - what makes you (all) imagine that? Did Fox insinuate it or.... ?

The more women who make false accusations the more likely the real claims will be ignored.
It's a simple concept,but I'm not surprised you dont get it.

How do you asses in this case the accusations are false?

The fact she couldnt come up with the place,the time,how she got there,how she got home and no corroborating witnesses.
Along with the fact she lied about being afraid to fly and that she'd never talked to anyone about polygraph tests.
Add the fact she claimed her mental problems were brought on by here house remodel in 12 when it actually happened in 08.
This bitch is a walking contradiction and anyone who believes her shit is a partisan fucktard.

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

Look troll, someone may have assaulted her, but just because you can't prove it's Kavanaugh, that doesn't stop you from wanting see it laid on him.

Now I'm a troll? Mike, seems to me I, unlike you have this argument in good faith. Herewegoagain directly answered my question. He came out with 4 reasons why he didn't believe Ford. I addressed every single one of them. I don't need deflections or name calling to make my point. I'm sorry that you feel I put you on the defensive because of that, but that's in the end what discussing something is all about isn't it?

 

[Norman]

You obviously dont care that future women are less likely to be believed when it comes to sexual assault.

Hmmmmm.....is there a reason?

I asked once already - what makes you (all) imagine that? Did Fox insinuate it or.... ?

The more women who make false accusations the more likely the real claims will be ignored.
It's a simple concept,but I'm not surprised you dont get it.

How do you asses in this case the accusations are false?

The fact she couldnt come up with the place,the time,how she got there,how she got home and no corroborating witnesses.
Along with the fact she lied about being afraid to fly and that she'd never talked to anyone about polygraph tests.
Add the fact she claimed her mental problems were brought on by here house remodel in 12 when it actually happened in 08.
This bitch is a walking contradiction and anyone who believes her shit is a partisan fucktard.

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

Do you know what makes the accusation absolutely worthless? Think for it... think for it...

The fact that there is not one piece of evidence. Now try understanding the concept of innocent until PROVEN guilty, if you don't start getting it soon I hope you aren't afraid of flying to some 3rd world country.

 

[Ecocertifmrl]

Do you know what makes the accusation absolutely worthless? Think for it... think for it...

The fact that there is not one piece of evidence.

Why should that make an accusation worthless????

 

[Norman]

Do you know what makes the accusation absolutely worthless? Think for it... think for it...

The fact that there is not one piece of evidence.

Why should that make an accusation worthless????

Did you forget to read the last part of the post? The one talking about innocent until proven guilty?

How the fck are we supposed to verify her claim, if she has NO ONE piece of evidence, not to mention EVERY reason to lie?

The 3rd world is calling you. Clearly you have supreme intuitive understanding of their ways.

 

[Ecocertifmrl]

Do you know what makes the accusation absolutely worthless? Think for it... think for it...

The fact that there is not one piece of evidence.

Why should that make an accusation worthless????

Did you forget to read the last part of the post? The one talking about innocent until proven guilty?

How the fck are we supposed to verify her claim, if she has NO ONE piece of evidence, not to mention EVERY reason to lie?

The 3rd world is calling you. Clearly you have supreme intuitive understanding of their ways.

None of those fucking things would make her fucking accusation worthless in itself.

 

[Doc1]

Nobody "proved" anything, you simply choose to believe the lies.

Again how do you know that, besides your opinion?

If one cannot prove one assertions said assertions by definition false.

No then they are by definition unproven. There is a difference. I can't proof there is life on other planets, yet that does not mean it's proof that there isn't. It's called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

I'm still waiting for someone, ANYONE to PROVE Ford's accusations. So being a "Constitutionalist is being "partial"? You're a bright one aren't you?

 

[forkup]

I asked once already - what makes you (all) imagine that? Did Fox insinuate it or.... ?

The more women who make false accusations the more likely the real claims will be ignored.
It's a simple concept,but I'm not surprised you dont get it.

How do you asses in this case the accusations are false?

The fact she couldnt come up with the place,the time,how she got there,how she got home and no corroborating witnesses.
Along with the fact she lied about being afraid to fly and that she'd never talked to anyone about polygraph tests.
Add the fact she claimed her mental problems were brought on by here house remodel in 12 when it actually happened in 08.
This bitch is a walking contradiction and anyone who believes her shit is a partisan fucktard.

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

Meaning she couldn't prove shit but you believe her anyway because Kavanaugh is a poo poo head. Good lord.

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is that Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

 

[forkup]

Again how do you know that, besides your opinion?

If one cannot prove one assertions said assertions by definition false.

No then they are by definition unproven. There is a difference. I can't proof there is life on other planets, yet that does not mean it's proof that there isn't. It's called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

I'm still waiting for someone, ANYONE to PROVE Ford's accusations. So being a "Constitutionalist is being "partial"? You're a bright one aren't you?

No saying you are the victim of a smear campaign by the left and the Clinton's no less. And go on record saying "what goes around comes around" in your PREPARED statement makes you partial. As to the rest. Standard of proof is different for a job interview then it is in a court of law. This was a job interview.

 

[Doc1]

The more women who make false accusations the more likely the real claims will be ignored.
It's a simple concept,but I'm not surprised you dont get it.

How do you asses in this case the accusations are false?

The fact she couldnt come up with the place,the time,how she got there,how she got home and no corroborating witnesses.
Along with the fact she lied about being afraid to fly and that she'd never talked to anyone about polygraph tests.
Add the fact she claimed her mental problems were brought on by here house remodel in 12 when it actually happened in 08.
This bitch is a walking contradiction and anyone who believes her shit is a partisan fucktard.

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

Meaning she couldn't prove shit but you believe her anyway because Kavanaugh is a poo poo head. Good lord.

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

 

[forkup]

How do you asses in this case the accusations are false?

The fact she couldnt come up with the place,the time,how she got there,how she got home and no corroborating witnesses.
Along with the fact she lied about being afraid to fly and that she'd never talked to anyone about polygraph tests.
Add the fact she claimed her mental problems were brought on by here house remodel in 12 when it actually happened in 08.
This bitch is a walking contradiction and anyone who believes her shit is a partisan fucktard.

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

Meaning she couldn't prove shit but you believe her anyway because Kavanaugh is a poo poo head. Good lord.

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

 

[forkup]

How do you asses in this case the accusations are false?

The fact she couldnt come up with the place,the time,how she got there,how she got home and no corroborating witnesses.
Along with the fact she lied about being afraid to fly and that she'd never talked to anyone about polygraph tests.
Add the fact she claimed her mental problems were brought on by here house remodel in 12 when it actually happened in 08.
This bitch is a walking contradiction and anyone who believes her shit is a partisan fucktard.

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

Meaning she couldn't prove shit but you believe her anyway because Kavanaugh is a poo poo head. Good lord.

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

As to proving her allegations, I don't have to. My standard of proof to not want him on the Supreme court is that the accusations are credible or not. If you would suggest to put him in jail that standard would be beyond reasonable doubt. It's an important distinction.