OFFICIAL: Kavanaugh Hearings Thread

[skookerasbil]

We have some real dummies posting on this thread.

The difference is you are not trying to use those memories to ruin someone's life. Once you try to do that you damn well better remember enough to allow them to defend themselves.

Show me where the GOP has been against due process.

-I'm sorry, but are you now again suggesting that because Ford remembers her assault, this somehow makes it unfair to Kavanaugh to bring her sexual assault up? Again this guy is up for SCOTUS, not a dog catcher.
-They have refused to call up Mark Judge, Ramires or Swetnick. They have refused to ask the President to reopen the FBI background check. They have refused actually ANY witness except Ford or Kavanaugh.

The bigger issue is if that he's not appointed because of the accusation his career is likely over and he is forever tainted over something:

1. He denies vehemently
2. That cannot be proven in any court of law, be it criminal or even civil.

The fact that the memories that could be checked out in any way is the most damning thing about this, be it a willful fabrication or just her mind remembering parts of what happened (to her) that didn't actually happen.

The background check would turn up nothing additional, because there is ZERO documentation of the incident in question.

As for the other 3, the committee (as a whole) had access to all the statements made, and even questioned some of them via paper.

Is your lust for power so great that ruining a possibly innocent man is worth it?

-Actually that is in the scheme of things pretty minor. Firstly, he STILL holds a position at the appellate court. He still has a career. Also the law is bigger then one man. The Supreme Court makes decisions for all Americans.
-AN FBI investigation could actually be helpful. They could interview Mark Judge for instance. Something that is better then simply accepting a statement. They could check when Judge worked at that supermarket establishing a time of the assault. Something that Ford suggested by the way. They could talk to the other 2 people who have made similar allegations and look for corroboration or exonerating evidence for Kavanaugh in the form of alibis or what not. There are a lot of facts the FBI could uncover that the Senate committee is simply not equipped for.

You really think that if he is not confirmed for this, and the Dems take the house, their base won't clamor for his Impeachment?

I find it comical you appeal to the law when if this was a court proceeding under the law he wouldn't be indicted.

All the investigation thing is moot because Dems waited 2 months to bring this up for political reasons, sorry, actions have consequences.

Floor vote time.

-They may clamor for it. Doesn't mean they will get it.By the way what makes you think if the Democrats win they wouldn't clamor for his impeachment if he gets on the bench?
-This is a political appointment not a court of law. There's a difference. If someone would suggest that Kavanaugh would be jailed for this I would have a problem with them because THAT does require judicial standards of proof.
- There goes your argument that Republicans are following due process..... So because you suspect political motivation the Republicans should not find out the truth of these matters? Glad you don't use political motivation. "Hey it's just a lifetime appointment to the supreme court for a suspected rapist, what's the big deal?"
-I've said it before. I'm not big on fortune telling I'm really not, but I will make this prediction. Confirm Kavanaugh and the GOP can say goodbye to any but the most ardent females in the Trump base. All other ones will go out and vote just to spite them.

Imagine some of the banter today in that committee! I'm laughing.....because you know for sure they are considering the "bulldog" factor. It's always the bulldog women coming up with this shit and especially women know it! But how many men are laughing about it today??!!

 

[forkup]

It's amazing how for 30 years Repubtards were beyond obsessed that Clinton may have harassed a couple women, yet now support a rapist who spews Clinton conspiracy theories. Republicans had FBI investigating Clinton while allowing 9/11 attacks, but refuse the FBI investigate repubtard political operative judges rape.

Clinton’s DNA was all over the place! Please produce Kavanaugh’s DNA.

LOL - DNA on dress of a willing Clinton groopie who threw herself at him. LOL
Give the FBI 30+ years to investigate Kavanaugh's forced rape + attempted murder!!!

The FBI could investigate for 100 years and find nothing

There is nothing there. She lied

No, she did not lie. She just hasn't yet proven her charges beyond any reasonable doubt. Repubtards & Kavanaugh are refusing an FBI investigation because it could prove her charges beyond any reasonable doubt.

Attempting rape & murder is far beyond any sexual harassment accusations against Donald Trump, Clarence Thomas or Bill Clinton!!!

I really don't see how the FBI has anything but "She now remembers" to go on... Where is her calendar, diary, journal from 36 years ago? What did she tell her parents, her minister, her teachers, the police back then ----- or even now for that matter?

Four people have given sworn affidavits to the committee stating what Ford told them about the accusation years BEFORE he was nominated. She has further asserted she told her congressman about Kavanaugh when he was put on the shortlist. She also wrote the Washington Post around the same time. Meaning there is a written record the accusation didn't just surface with his nomination.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Unfortunately these hearing has left lots of doubt about this guy.

1. He did not answer many of the questions asked of him, instead going out in left field in many cases. Why did he avoid answering those questions?

2. What judicial demeanor? His demeanor was angry, unbalanced, almost deranged at times. Judicial ethical standards require that a judge be courteous, dignified, and patient.
who would want to have their case held in his court with that demeanor?

3. And a big one there remain accusations that he committed felony sexual abuse, without any evidence to the contrary. An FBI investigation could have discovered that evidence, but unfortunately it was not looked for.

4. Finally, if he did in fact commit even a single one of the accused crimes, he also committed perjury.

There exist many possible candidates for the Supreme Court without all these doubts. Trump said there should be no doubts. Let's pick a candidate with no doubts!

I have no doubts, ed. And actually, he was quite calm by my standards, considering the way the Democrats tried to whack him.

 

[forkup]

-Actually that is in the scheme of things pretty minor. Firstly, he STILL holds a position at the appellate court. He still has a career. Also the law is bigger then one man. The Supreme Court makes decisions for all Americans.
-AN FBI investigation could actually be helpful. They could interview Mark Judge for instance. Something that is better then simply accepting a statement. They could check when Judge worked at that supermarket establishing a time of the assault. Something that Ford suggested by the way. They could talk to the other 2 people who have made similar allegations and look for corroboration or exonerating evidence for Kavanaugh in the form of alibis or what not. There are a lot of facts the FBI could uncover that the Senate committee is simply not equipped for.

You really think that if he is not confirmed for this, and the Dems take the house, their base won't clamor for his Impeachment?

I find it comical you appeal to the law when if this was a court proceeding under the law he wouldn't be indicted.

All the investigation thing is moot because Dems waited 2 months to bring this up for political reasons, sorry, actions have consequences.

Floor vote time.

-They may clamor for it. Doesn't mean they will get it.By the way what makes you think if the Democrats win they wouldn't clamor for his impeachment if he gets on the bench?
-This is a political appointment not a court of law. There's a difference. If someone would suggest that Kavanaugh would be jailed for this I would have a problem with them because THAT does require judicial standards of proof.
- There goes your argument that Republicans are following due process..... So because you suspect political motivation the Republicans should not find out the truth of these matters? Glad you don't use political motivation. "Hey it's just a lifetime appointment to the supreme court for a suspected rapist, what's the big deal?"
-I've said it before. I'm not big on fortune telling I'm really not, but I will make this prediction. Confirm Kavanaugh and the GOP can say goodbye to any but the most ardent females in the Trump base. All other ones will go out and vote just to spite them.

They clamored for forcing the Republicans to use the Nuke option against Gorusch (and they got it).

How did that work out for Dems?

So you are Ok with their life being ruined and political gain from false accusations. Got it.

The hearing was the way to try to get to the bottom of things. The process is being followed to the letter in this case.

You are forgetting about mothers with sons, and wives with husbands who may worry their child or spouse can get railroaded by 30 year old accusations.

-If some random person would accuse another random person of sexual assault, chances are that person committed sexual assault. One doesn't typically levy that accusation unmerited. Being able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt is another matter.
-The US finds it perfectly appropriate to have public registers of sex crime offenders. These people are branded for life. If that is appropriate I will not shed a tear for the few people who get wrongly accused of sexual crimes in cases were embarrassment on the local level is the worst they suffer.
- As to the hearing being meant to get to the bottom of things. You can't both admit that Republicans refused to take steps in the investigation and in the next breath say to they wanted to get to the bottom of things.

All the investigation thing is moot because Dems waited 2 months to bring this up for political reasons, sorry, actions have consequences.

Wow, nice job ignoring hundreds of years of american legal precedent. Innocent until proven guilty.

Wow, guess you would be more concerned otherwise if it happened to you.

They could have just went with a vote, or had the hearing monday. They bent over backwards to a point to give this woman the floor, and give the Dems another chance to bolster their 2020 campaign ads.

It did happen to me from the perspective of the victim in case you forgot Marty.

 

[MisterBeale]

Nope. I really had not decided how I would decide on this until I heard them both. So I watched them both yesterday, and what I said earlier about my impression of his character and also the strident partisan tone of his statement--and attitude toward the Democratic questioners--stands. Your insults don't change my mind in the least.

So you have a problem with a partisan answer to a partisan question?

Did you see his smart ass response to Senator Klobuchar? She was doing her job of trying to get to bottom of the allegations. He asked if SHE had ever been blackout drunk.
C'mon, that wasn't USMB. Smart ass responses to something like that are unprofessional. If you missed it, the exchange is below. Trying to determine if he drank to excess and might have forgotten an incident is at the heart of the allegations and wasn't "partisan" on Senator Klobuchar's part. After a potty break, Kavanaugh came back and apologized to her--apparently someone took him aside and told him it was out of line. His excuse was "this is a tough process." Poor him.

Kavanaugh Apologizes to Klobuchar For Drinking Question

But this raises a very important question;

If a person who is not conscious, who is black out drunk, cannot be a consenting willing partner in sexual activity, is person who is black out drunk and "sleep walking," or "sleep eating" or "sleep fucking" responsible for their behavior? How do we know that the person that they are having sex with is actually, "passed out" at the time they claim they are passed out? Is someone that can't even remember having sex actually in control enough to have sex with someone that is unwilling unless they have some modicum of cooperation, even if they don't even remember?

How does anyone know if both participants have no memory of the incident?

What I am getting at here, is as a society, we seem to be placing all the responsibility of bad things that happen when kids get black out drunk strictly on the boys, and not equally on the girls. I just don't understand why this is. I have read the yearbooks of both, I know what they both really truly wanted. I don't think either is guiltless.

Sexual Assault and Rape are the new McCarthyism here. If they are going to play these cards politically to destroy men's lives, boys should NEVER drink around girls, ever. They should just not have any fun with them. That is all there is to it. It's clear now, anything bad that happens, any hurt feelings or loss of control, it will always be the guys fault.

Never mind giving any sympathy to those even falsely accused???

Ian Buruma and the age of sexual McCarthyism | Spectator USA

 

[Defiant1]

Unfortunately these hearing has left lots of doubt about this guy.

1. He did not answer many of the questions asked of him, instead going out in left field in many cases. Why did he avoid answering those questions?

2. What judicial demeanor? His demeanor was angry, unbalanced, almost deranged at times. Judicial ethical standards require that a judge be courteous, dignified, and patient.
who would want to have their case held in his court with that demeanor?

3. And a big one there remain accusations that he committed felony sexual abuse, without any evidence to the contrary. An FBI investigation could have discovered that evidence, but unfortunately it was not looked for.

4. Finally, if he did in fact commit even a single one of the accused crimes, he also committed perjury.

There exist many possible candidates for the Supreme Court without all these doubts. Trump said there should be no doubts. Let's pick a candidate with no doubts!

What serious question did he not answer?

 

[forkup]

-Actually that is in the scheme of things pretty minor. Firstly, he STILL holds a position at the appellate court. He still has a career. Also the law is bigger then one man. The Supreme Court makes decisions for all Americans.
-AN FBI investigation could actually be helpful. They could interview Mark Judge for instance. Something that is better then simply accepting a statement. They could check when Judge worked at that supermarket establishing a time of the assault. Something that Ford suggested by the way. They could talk to the other 2 people who have made similar allegations and look for corroboration or exonerating evidence for Kavanaugh in the form of alibis or what not. There are a lot of facts the FBI could uncover that the Senate committee is simply not equipped for.

You really think that if he is not confirmed for this, and the Dems take the house, their base won't clamor for his Impeachment?

I find it comical you appeal to the law when if this was a court proceeding under the law he wouldn't be indicted.

All the investigation thing is moot because Dems waited 2 months to bring this up for political reasons, sorry, actions have consequences.

Floor vote time.

-They may clamor for it. Doesn't mean they will get it.By the way what makes you think if the Democrats win they wouldn't clamor for his impeachment if he gets on the bench?
-This is a political appointment not a court of law. There's a difference. If someone would suggest that Kavanaugh would be jailed for this I would have a problem with them because THAT does require judicial standards of proof.
- There goes your argument that Republicans are following due process..... So because you suspect political motivation the Republicans should not find out the truth of these matters? Glad you don't use political motivation. "Hey it's just a lifetime appointment to the supreme court for a suspected rapist, what's the big deal?"
-I've said it before. I'm not big on fortune telling I'm really not, but I will make this prediction. Confirm Kavanaugh and the GOP can say goodbye to any but the most ardent females in the Trump base. All other ones will go out and vote just to spite them.

They clamored for forcing the Republicans to use the Nuke option against Gorusch (and they got it).

How did that work out for Dems?

So you are Ok with their life being ruined and political gain from false accusations. Got it.

The hearing was the way to try to get to the bottom of things. The process is being followed to the letter in this case.

You are forgetting about mothers with sons, and wives with husbands who may worry their child or spouse can get railroaded by 30 year old accusations.

-If some random person would accuse another random person of sexual assault, chances are that person committed sexual assault. One doesn't typically levy that accusation unmerited. Being able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt is another matter.
-The US finds it perfectly appropriate to have public registers of sex crime offenders. These people are branded for life. If that is appropriate I will not shed a tear for the few people who get wrongly accused of sexual crimes in cases were embarrassment on the local level is the worst they suffer.
- As to the hearing being meant to get to the bottom of things. You can't both admit that Republicans refused to take steps in the investigation and in the next breath say to they wanted to get to the bottom of things.

All the investigation thing is moot because Dems waited 2 months to bring this up for political reasons, sorry, actions have consequences.

Wow, nice job ignoring hundreds of years of american legal precedent. Innocent until proven guilty.

Wow, guess you would be more concerned otherwise if it happened to you.

They could have just went with a vote, or had the hearing monday. They bent over backwards to a point to give this woman the floor, and give the Dems another chance to bolster their 2020 campaign ads.

Bent over backwards??? They did less than the minimum any rookie cop would do to find the facts.

 

[KissMy]

No, she did not lie. She just hasn't yet proven her charges beyond any reasonable doubt. Repubtards & Kavanaugh are refusing an FBI investigation because it could prove her charges beyond any reasonable doubt.

Attempting rape & murder is far beyond any sexual harassment accusations against Donald Trump, Clarence Thomas or Bill Clinton!!!

Actually in honesty, proving something like this beyond reasonable doubt 35 years after is unlikely. It should't matter since this isn't a trail.

If it were a trial Brett Kavanaugh would have been jailed for being combative to questions from Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Kavanaugh acted guilty as hell choking down water, screaming, disrespecting authority & refusing investigation.

Sorry Kiss acting guilty does NOT constitute proof of guilt.

Such conduct is 100% appropriate to consider when evaluating a witness' credibility.

Sure, but Kiss is not talking about credibility, he's talking about jailing somebody over acting guilty. Pretty funny how you just lectured me about un-American.

Wrong - I said if this were a trial Kavanaugh would be jailed for contempt of court!

 

[iceberg]

amazing the 3rd accuser and ford are friends both represented by the same lawyer.

Do you have any evidence they are friends? Actually, never mind. Stay on track. Even if they are friends, it still doesn't explain how Ford knows details of Kavvy's childhood when that should be impossible according to Kavvy's testimony.

suddenly you want evidence.

how fucked up is that? blind accusations are cool when you like the direction but now a party foul.

sorry - but FUCK THAT. i ain't playing that game. if you establish that accusations are enough and the accused must prove their innocence, then you prove they're NOT friends.

now tell me, is this a good tactic to become "standard"?

 

[iceberg]

Kavanaugh going on and on trying to waste the 5 minutes of questioning time.

I was hollering into the television screen, "YES or NO" If this had been a courtroom, Kav would have been shut down quick by the judge for all his equivocating and roundabout answers. Amazing how Grassley had NO problem with them.

amazing how you have no problem with unfounded accusations.

wait. it's you. not its not. carry on with the leftist bashing. i think we both know if someone on the left were accused of something so stupid you'd NOT be believing the accuser at that point and your tone would be very different.

Nope. I really had not decided how I would decide on this until I heard them both. So I watched them both yesterday, and what I said earlier about my impression of his character and also the strident partisan tone of his statement--and attitude toward the Democratic questioners--stands. Your insults don't change my mind in the least.

this isn't a courtroom. so you're mixing situations to fit your emotions.

kinda hard to get more leftist than that.

 

[forkup]

Actually in honesty, proving something like this beyond reasonable doubt 35 years after is unlikely. It should't matter since this isn't a trail.

If it were a trial Brett Kavanaugh would have been jailed for being combative to questions from Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Kavanaugh acted guilty as hell choking down water, screaming, disrespecting authority & refusing investigation.

Sorry Kiss acting guilty does NOT constitute proof of guilt.

Such conduct is 100% appropriate to consider when evaluating a witness' credibility.

Sure, but Kiss is not talking about credibility, he's talking about jailing somebody over acting guilty. Pretty funny how you just lectured me about un-American.

Wrong - I said if this were a trial Kavanaugh would be jailed for contempt of court!

I stand corrected.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Clinton’s DNA was all over the place! Please produce Kavanaugh’s DNA.

LOL - DNA on dress of a willing Clinton groopie who threw herself at him. LOL
Give the FBI 30+ years to investigate Kavanaugh's forced rape + attempted murder!!!

The FBI could investigate for 100 years and find nothing

There is nothing there. She lied

No, she did not lie. She just hasn't yet proven her charges beyond any reasonable doubt. Repubtards & Kavanaugh are refusing an FBI investigation because it could prove her charges beyond any reasonable doubt.

Attempting rape & murder is far beyond any sexual harassment accusations against Donald Trump, Clarence Thomas or Bill Clinton!!!

I really don't see how the FBI has anything but "She now remembers" to go on... Where is her calendar, diary, journal from 36 years ago? What did she tell her parents, her minister, her teachers, the police back then ----- or even now for that matter?

Four people have given sworn affidavits to the committee stating what Ford told them about the accusation years BEFORE he was nominated. She has further asserted she told her congressman about Kavanaugh when he was put on the shortlist. She also wrote the Washington Post around the same time. Meaning there is a written record the accusation didn't just surface with his nomination.

Four people have given sworn affidavits to the committee stating what Ford told them about the accusation years BEFORE he was nominated.

That's called hearsay.

 

[WillowTree]

Unfortunately these hearing has left lots of doubt about this guy.

1. He did not answer many of the questions asked of him, instead going out in left field in many cases. Why did he avoid answering those questions?

2. What judicial demeanor? His demeanor was angry, unbalanced, almost deranged at times. Judicial ethical standards require that a judge be courteous, dignified, and patient.
who would want to have their case held in his court with that demeanor?

3. And a big one there remain accusations that he committed felony sexual abuse, without any evidence to the contrary. An FBI investigation could have discovered that evidence, but unfortunately it was not looked for.

4. Finally, if he did in fact commit even a single one of the accused crimes, he also committed perjury.

There exist many possible candidates for the Supreme Court without all these doubts. Trump said there should be no doubts. Let's pick a candidate with no doubts!

So why didn’t she go to the police again?

look it up, google it

why sexual assault victims do not report


or

you can ask one of the hundreds of teens those pedophile Priests sexually assaulted and did not report it for 20 to 40 years...

NO. I am asking about why when she did decide to go public why she first went to the Washington Post and then to Diane Feinstein? According to you guys he committed a felony. There is no statute of limitations! She has two masters degrees and a PhD. She has two lawyers who know who know what a felony is. So, why didn’t they go to the police or to the FBI? Want me to tell you? She was nobody’s victim. This was a political hit job start to finish. It was not about justice or truth or the American way. It was about a corrupt political party and revenge. Poor Democrats they are so evil and mindless. I loathe them.

 

[iceberg]

I was hollering into the television screen, "YES or NO" If this had been a courtroom, Kav would have been shut down quick by the judge for all his equivocating and roundabout answers. Amazing how Grassley had NO problem with them.

Considering Ford's accusations would never get to the point of a trial, calling for the Standards of Judge to be enacted would result in the hearing never happening in the first place.

Just a comment. When having a hearing, if I were asking a yes or no question, I would want an answer. They weren't "trick" questions, from what I recall.

Usually it's an Attorney on either side that wants the yes or no response only, not the judge. The judge only decides if the attorney's request is valid or not.

I've been questioned and cross examined enough times to know that if I didn't immediately give a yes or no response to a yes/no question, I was going to get told by the judge to answer the question. If I was lucky, and it was a question that required more than a yes/no, the judge would let me continue....

One thing that is very telling is that the attorney that the Republicans brought in was clearly in "cross examine" mode when questioning Ford, but not so when questioning Kavvy. It just goes to show that she came in to treat Ford as a hostile witness.

wah.

they're not playing fair with our unfair accusations.

wah.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Even the lawyers association says to involve FBI DUE PROCESS ,,,RULE OF LAW of which repubs know nothing of unless it helps their cause

Just shows the ABA has judicially lost its way as well.

 

[forkup]

LOL - DNA on dress of a willing Clinton groopie who threw herself at him. LOL
Give the FBI 30+ years to investigate Kavanaugh's forced rape + attempted murder!!!

The FBI could investigate for 100 years and find nothing

There is nothing there. She lied

No, she did not lie. She just hasn't yet proven her charges beyond any reasonable doubt. Repubtards & Kavanaugh are refusing an FBI investigation because it could prove her charges beyond any reasonable doubt.

Attempting rape & murder is far beyond any sexual harassment accusations against Donald Trump, Clarence Thomas or Bill Clinton!!!

I really don't see how the FBI has anything but "She now remembers" to go on... Where is her calendar, diary, journal from 36 years ago? What did she tell her parents, her minister, her teachers, the police back then ----- or even now for that matter?

Four people have given sworn affidavits to the committee stating what Ford told them about the accusation years BEFORE he was nominated. She has further asserted she told her congressman about Kavanaugh when he was put on the shortlist. She also wrote the Washington Post around the same time. Meaning there is a written record the accusation didn't just surface with his nomination.

Four people have given sworn affidavits to the committee stating what Ford told them about the accusation years BEFORE he was nominated.

That's called hearsay.

Sure, on the other hand stating that we don't know what she told other people is incorrect.

 

[iceberg]

Actually in honesty, proving something like this beyond reasonable doubt 35 years after is unlikely. It should't matter since this isn't a trail.

If it were a trial Brett Kavanaugh would have been jailed for being combative to questions from Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Kavanaugh acted guilty as hell choking down water, screaming, disrespecting authority & refusing investigation.

Sorry Kiss acting guilty does NOT constitute proof of guilt.

Such conduct is 100% appropriate to consider when evaluating a witness' credibility.

Sure, but Kiss is not talking about credibility, he's talking about jailing somebody over acting guilty. Pretty funny how you just lectured me about un-American.

Wrong - I said if this were a trial Kavanaugh would be jailed for contempt of court!

this never would have made it to trial because there is no proof of the activity. in a trial, burden of proof falls on the accuser.

again, the left loves to mix and match situations to match their emo's and then get all upset when:
1) people don't follow along
2) people do it back to them

 

[Stormy Daniels]

amazing the 3rd accuser and ford are friends both represented by the same lawyer.

Do you have any evidence they are friends? Actually, never mind. Stay on track. Even if they are friends, it still doesn't explain how Ford knows details of Kavvy's childhood when that should be impossible according to Kavvy's testimony.

suddenly you want evidence.

how fucked up is that? blind accusations are cool when you like the direction but now a party foul.

sorry - but FUCK THAT. i ain't playing that game. if you establish that accusations are enough and the accused must prove their innocence, then you prove they're NOT friends.

now tell me, is this a good tactic to become "standard"?

Your boy Kavvy walked right into a glaring discrepancy, and now you're melting down because nobody will believe your made up claims.

 

[forkup]

Unfortunately these hearing has left lots of doubt about this guy.

1. He did not answer many of the questions asked of him, instead going out in left field in many cases. Why did he avoid answering those questions?

2. What judicial demeanor? His demeanor was angry, unbalanced, almost deranged at times. Judicial ethical standards require that a judge be courteous, dignified, and patient.
who would want to have their case held in his court with that demeanor?

3. And a big one there remain accusations that he committed felony sexual abuse, without any evidence to the contrary. An FBI investigation could have discovered that evidence, but unfortunately it was not looked for.

4. Finally, if he did in fact commit even a single one of the accused crimes, he also committed perjury.

There exist many possible candidates for the Supreme Court without all these doubts. Trump said there should be no doubts. Let's pick a candidate with no doubts!

So why didn’t she go to the police again?

look it up, google it

why sexual assault victims do not report


or

you can ask one of the hundreds of teens those pedophile Priests sexually assaulted and did not report it for 20 to 40 years...

NO. I am asking about why when she did decide to go public why she first went to the Washington Post and then to Diane Feinstein? According to you guys he committed a felony. There is no statute of limitations! She has two masters degrees and a PhD. She has two lawyers who know who know what a felony is. So, why didn’t they go to the police or to the FBI? Want me to tell you? She was nobody’s victim. This was a political hit job start to finish. It was not about justice or truth or the American way. It was about a corrupt political party and revenge. Poor Democrats they are so evil and mindless. I loathe them.

Or alternatively she knew that proving it to judicial standard would be nigh on impossible and decided to get another measure of revenge on someone who traumatized her.

 

[iceberg]

amazing the 3rd accuser and ford are friends both represented by the same lawyer.

Do you have any evidence they are friends? Actually, never mind. Stay on track. Even if they are friends, it still doesn't explain how Ford knows details of Kavvy's childhood when that should be impossible according to Kavvy's testimony.

suddenly you want evidence.

how fucked up is that? blind accusations are cool when you like the direction but now a party foul.

sorry - but FUCK THAT. i ain't playing that game. if you establish that accusations are enough and the accused must prove their innocence, then you prove they're NOT friends.

now tell me, is this a good tactic to become "standard"?

Your boy Kavvy walked right into a glaring discrepancy, and now you're melting down because nobody will believe your made up claims.

wah.

blind accusations w/o proof suck and i'm not going to go along with them from anyone on any side.

discrepancy - like 4 guys!. no wait, 2 and 2 were down stairs. no wait, i had a girlfriend with me... funny you don't give a shit about her ever changing story.

we are so far beyond a single person at this point and i'm arguing the methodology, not the people. you can keep doing the "your boy" crap but i don't care which side, who it is and the like. part of our "american" process cannot be "guilty until proven innocent" any longer.

sorry but that leftist ideal needs to die a horrible painful death.