Merged Kavanaugh/Ford OpinionComment threads for Oct 1

[Pop23]

Sure you can. Ever been forced to take a Breathalyzer?

Have you ever been required to take a drug test for a job?

Ever hear of a secret court called FISA?

You can't be forced to take a breathalyzer.
You can't be forced to take a drug test.
FISA is not relevant to this.

And when you Refuse there are severe penalties.

it's called a court order for a blood test.

They confiscate your license and impound your care upon refusal of a Breathalizer.

Where is the Due Process in that?

And why are their DUI Checkpoints in a lot of states?

That also is a violation of your rights.

Driving is not a right.

Correct, but it does speak to how a citizen can volunteer to give up a right without it violating the constitution

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,

Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.

you mean like the right to face your accuser?
the right to be innocent until proven guilty?

funny...the left only gives a fuck about rights when it suits their purposes.

Kavanaugh has not been charged with a crime, hence, his legal rights are not being jeopardized or challenged. He is, in fact, being given the opportunity to challenge allegations made by his accuser even though there is no real law to protect a person from another citizens allegations of wrongdoing other than civil actions. Kavanaugh is applying for a job. He is not on criminal trial. If he was applying for a job as a landscaper and someone told you to keep your doors locked because he was a thief, you would not have to prove he was a thief. You could decide not to hire him based on the comment and allegation of one person. Your subjective opinion would suffice legally to deny the applicant a job.

But it's the highest court of the land. The FBI MUST investigate her therapists notes recordings and any electronic correspondence as well

Under what legal doctrine or theory is the FBI allowed to ignore the constitutional laws that protect citizens?

Ask Michael Cohen or Paul Manafort

 

[miketx]

What rights does having to prove your mental state violate? What right does having to prove your baseless claims violate?

First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.

I get it now. We just have to take her word for it.

No one is forcing you to make a subjective opinion about who or what to believe. You are free to have your opinion and tell the world your opinion.

Do you have the worlds link so I can tell them?

You are doing it right now. USMB is available to anyone with global internet access. You can further post your opinions on endless internet platforms.

What am I doing right now?

 

[iceberg]

First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.

I get it now. We just have to take her word for it.

No one is forcing you to make a subjective opinion about who or what to believe. You are free to have your opinion and tell the world your opinion.

Do you have the worlds link so I can tell them?

You are doing it right now. USMB is available to anyone with global internet access. You can further post your opinions on endless internet platforms.

What am I doing right now?

he's trying to pretend global access to a resource is the same as global cooperation on issues such as economy and government.

kinda cute if not totally pathetic.

 

[Toronado3800]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

Maybe there is something in there she is embarrassed about like bed wetting?

Let's let this play out. You aren't in a hurry for some reason are you?

Just because this justice to be is losing his cool?

I really don't care if he had a binge drinking problem in college. He should be adult enough to admit it. Heck, if he said he went to parties and tried to get lucky with drunk girls but just ended up drunk himself half of us could relate lol.

But yeah, are you in some kind of hurry to get this vote through? Is there a team you are rooting for?

You are an idiot....there is nothing Ford said that has any relation to the truth or facts...she is lying. She is a left wing activist who won the Golden Ticket, she knows Kavanaugh from her high school years and now she is a #metoo millionaire...yep, actually a millionaire, her GoFundMe page passed a million dollars....and this is before her book deal, movie deal, speaking fees and academic career boost..........

There is nothing truthful in her allegations...she is lying....she should never have been given time before a committee.......

Prosecutor Who Questioned Ford Shreds Her Case In Five-Page Memo

Here are the nine problems outlined in Mitchell's memo:

1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened:

• In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
• In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
• Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.
• A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
• Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
• While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year

2. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name:

• No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
• No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
• Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
• In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.

3. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific:

• Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
• But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
• She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.

4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account:

• She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
• She does not remember how she got to the party.
• She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.
• Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.
  • Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
  • She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
  • She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
  • Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
  • But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
  • Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
• She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.

5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend:

• Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward.
• All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
  
  • Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.

Hey, the name caller strikes back lol. Nice way for a civilized fellow to start a conversation. Do you start conversations that way with fellows who are carrying guns?

 

[Camp]

First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.

I get it now. We just have to take her word for it.

No one is forcing you to make a subjective opinion about who or what to believe. You are free to have your opinion and tell the world your opinion.

Do you have the worlds link so I can tell them?

You are doing it right now. USMB is available to anyone with global internet access. You can further post your opinions on endless internet platforms.

What am I doing right now?

You are broadcasting your opinion. You asked a question and the question has been answered.

 

[bodecea]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,

Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.

you mean like the right to face your accuser?
the right to be innocent until proven guilty?

funny...the left only gives a fuck about rights when it suits their purposes.

I'm afraid you are not knowledgable on this event.......not a court of law, it's a job interview.

 

[iceberg]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

Maybe there is something in there she is embarrassed about like bed wetting?

Let's let this play out. You aren't in a hurry for some reason are you?

Just because this justice to be is losing his cool?

I really don't care if he had a binge drinking problem in college. He should be adult enough to admit it. Heck, if he said he went to parties and tried to get lucky with drunk girls but just ended up drunk himself half of us could relate lol.

But yeah, are you in some kind of hurry to get this vote through? Is there a team you are rooting for?

You are an idiot....there is nothing Ford said that has any relation to the truth or facts...she is lying. She is a left wing activist who won the Golden Ticket, she knows Kavanaugh from her high school years and now she is a #metoo millionaire...yep, actually a millionaire, her GoFundMe page passed a million dollars....and this is before her book deal, movie deal, speaking fees and academic career boost..........

There is nothing truthful in her allegations...she is lying....she should never have been given time before a committee.......

Prosecutor Who Questioned Ford Shreds Her Case In Five-Page Memo

Here are the nine problems outlined in Mitchell's memo:

1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened:

• In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
• In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
• Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.
• A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
• Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
• While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year

2. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name:

• No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
• No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
• Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
• In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.

3. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific:

• Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
• But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
• She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.

4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account:

• She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
• She does not remember how she got to the party.
• She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.
• Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.
  • Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
  • She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
  • She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
  • Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
  • But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
  • Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
• She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.

5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend:

• Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward.
• All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
  
  • Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.

Hey, the name caller strikes back lol. Nice way for a civilized fellow to start a conversation. Do you start conversations that way with fellows who are carrying guns?

do you shoot people who call you names?

 

[miketx]

I get it now. We just have to take her word for it.

No one is forcing you to make a subjective opinion about who or what to believe. You are free to have your opinion and tell the world your opinion.

Do you have the worlds link so I can tell them?

You are doing it right now. USMB is available to anyone with global internet access. You can further post your opinions on endless internet platforms.

What am I doing right now?

You are broadcasting your opinion. You asked a question and the question has been answered.

Funny, I don't recall posting an opinion here.

 

[miketx]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

Maybe there is something in there she is embarrassed about like bed wetting?

Let's let this play out. You aren't in a hurry for some reason are you?

Just because this justice to be is losing his cool?

I really don't care if he had a binge drinking problem in college. He should be adult enough to admit it. Heck, if he said he went to parties and tried to get lucky with drunk girls but just ended up drunk himself half of us could relate lol.

But yeah, are you in some kind of hurry to get this vote through? Is there a team you are rooting for?

You are an idiot....there is nothing Ford said that has any relation to the truth or facts...she is lying. She is a left wing activist who won the Golden Ticket, she knows Kavanaugh from her high school years and now she is a #metoo millionaire...yep, actually a millionaire, her GoFundMe page passed a million dollars....and this is before her book deal, movie deal, speaking fees and academic career boost..........

There is nothing truthful in her allegations...she is lying....she should never have been given time before a committee.......

Prosecutor Who Questioned Ford Shreds Her Case In Five-Page Memo

Here are the nine problems outlined in Mitchell's memo:

1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened:

• In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
• In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
• Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.
• A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
• Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
• While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year

2. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name:

• No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
• No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
• Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
• In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.

3. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific:

• Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
• But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
• She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.

4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account:

• She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
• She does not remember how she got to the party.
• She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.
• Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.
  • Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
  • She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
  • She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
  • Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
  • But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
  • Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
• She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.

5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend:

• Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward.
• All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
  
  • Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.

Hey, the name caller strikes back lol. Nice way for a civilized fellow to start a conversation. Do you start conversations that way with fellows who are carrying guns?

do you shoot people who call you names?

If they lose the mid terms that'll be next.

 

[bodecea]

Three Words:

Sub

Peen

Ahhh

Has the WH given the FBI subpoena power in this one week investigation?

 

[Theowl32]

All related to the same reason their black messiah did not ever release his college trancripts.

We all know why. They all know why. They are evil habitual proud liars.

The other ones that don't believe they are liars are all just following the pied piper to hell.

 

[bodecea]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,

Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.

you mean like the right to face your accuser?
the right to be innocent until proven guilty?

funny...the left only gives a fuck about rights when it suits their purposes.

Kavanaugh has not been charged with a crime, hence, his legal rights are not being jeopardized or challenged. He is, in fact, being given the opportunity to challenge allegations made by his accuser even though there is no real law to protect a person from another citizens allegations of wrongdoing other than civil actions. Kavanaugh is applying for a job. He is not on criminal trial. If he was applying for a job as a landscaper and someone told you to keep your doors locked because he was a thief, you would not have to prove he was a thief. You could decide not to hire him based on the comment and allegation of one person. Your subjective opinion would suffice legally to deny the applicant a job.

great. you explain this to the rabid left who are threatening his kids that they need to chill out and wait for the end result first.

sorry - we left common sense behind long ago so don't try to act the fool and then hide behind reason. you don't get to do both.

Threatening his kids? Seriously? I hope those threatening can be traced and prosecuted. You know of any who are doing that?

 

[bodecea]

All related to the same reason their black messiah did not ever release his college trancripts.

We all know why. They all know why. They are evil habitual proud liars.

The other ones that don't believe they are liars are all just following the pied piper to hell.

"black messiah"........well, isn't that special!

 

[Defiant1]

Three Words:

Sub

Peen

Ahhh

Has the WH given the FBI subpoena power in this one week investigation?

The WH ordered a supplemental background check.
There is no subpoena power on background.
If the FBI contacts you, you can tell them to go fuck themselves.

 

[bodecea]

In America the accused get to cross examine their accuser.

Since she refuses, her allegation should be ignored.

Not....a.....court....of....law.....it's....a....job....interview.

 

[Camp]

No one is forcing you to make a subjective opinion about who or what to believe. You are free to have your opinion and tell the world your opinion.

Do you have the worlds link so I can tell them?

You are doing it right now. USMB is available to anyone with global internet access. You can further post your opinions on endless internet platforms.

What am I doing right now?

You are broadcasting your opinion. You asked a question and the question has been answered.

Funny, I don't recall posting an opinion here.

You asked how you could give the world your opinion. Stupid question when you think about it.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

I understand why she doesn’t want them made public. Look, this woman has serious mental/emotional issues, she is admitted to being unstable. The things she told her shrink are very personal and probably very embarrassing, she never wanted her name made public ( thanks Feinstein). She just wanted somebody in the government to know.

What’s her mental health history?
Does she have fantasies of being raped? Making false allegations against those around her?

Maybe, we know she is unstable. We know she didn’t want to come out publicly. We know she can’t remember some very significant details about the alleged attack. We know she bottled this up for decades. I believe she believes Kavanuagh assaulted her. I just don’t trust her mental acuity regarding the facts. Had she come out an shared this with somebody right away, her recollection of the relevant facts (where, when and WHO) might be better and carry more significance.

 

[bodecea]

You can't violate your own rights.

Sure you can. Ever been forced to take a Breathalyzer?

Have you ever been required to take a drug test for a job?

Ever hear of a secret court called FISA?

You can't be forced to take a breathalyzer.
You can't be forced to take a drug test.
FISA is not relevant to this.

And when you Refuse there are severe penalties.

it's called a court order for a blood test.

They confiscate your license and impound your care upon refusal of a Breathalizer.

Where is the Due Process in that?

And why are their DUI Checkpoints in a lot of states?

That also is a violation of your rights.

Because, if you actually paid attention, you would have noticed that that is a condition of you being granted a license. Didn't you look that stuff over when you got your driver's license?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In America the accused get to cross examine their accuser.

Since she refuses, her allegation should be ignored.

Not....a.....court....of....law.....it's....a....job....interview.

But but but but it's a lifetime appointment to the highest Court, we need to get the FACTS. What's she hiding?