OFFICIAL: Kavanaugh Hearings Thread

[jc456]

Nothing like 'Nazicrats'.

Tell us again why presumption of innocence and due process are anachronisms?

Nazicrats is exactly what your filthy party is. Totalitarian goons with contempt for the most basic principles of law.

Isn’t it nazis that abandoned rule of law? Projecting again

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm watching The Last Days of Anne Boleyn on PBS.

This Kavanaugh-Ford scandal has nothing on that one, five hundred years ago.

Anne was murdered because she couldn't give Henry a male heir. Brett is to be murdered because he threatens the religion of abortion.

I see a lot of similarity.

When there is no system of law, people are savaged for their impact rather than their actions.

 

[jc456]

[
Accept for one huge detail, her bestest friend said it didn’t happen! That my friend corroborates kavanaugh and judge

They paid Dr. Ford a half-million dollars for her performance.

Perhaps if Ford had slipped $50k to her friend it would have changed things?

All the letters submitted are under penalties of five years in prison. You think their stories change?

 

[beautress]

The forum nanny said I couldn't post my opinion due to links above that I had to omit one by one.

My post today starts here, and not above (beautress)
Kavanaugh is a Roman Catholic since birth. He has kept his pledge to both his faith and his nation by living a clean and productive life. One of the modern planks of the DNC has become a hostility to anybody who opposes the killing of a fetus before its birth due to something King David proclaimed in one of his Psalms recorded in the Bible book of the same name. To translate it into modern day words, King David's words are interpreted: "Before I was completely formed in my mother's womb, God knew I was there." Some believe the words mean that life, even in the womb is sacred to God's knowledge, and that to intentionally remove it would be to disappoint God by committing an act of murder against the unborn.

This information makes some women mad because by the time they have done the deed, nobody informed them of this biblical knowledge and insight into the sanctity of human life from the time of conception until birth, from birth until death, and from death into heaven. It angers them because nobody told them this point of view prior to their enriching some abortion doctor who may not be allowed to acknowledge his own beliefs in favor of not upsetting the pregnant women who is not informed because she may become suicidal in extreme situations of having been raped and left for dead by someone she didn't even know.

Some have a panacea for everything as a goal in life. There isn't one for the taking an innocent life that is sacred to God and destroying it.

I am not even a Roman Catholic, I am not a fundamentalist. I am simply stating the two sides as I know it. Some state laws have gone with a disenchantment that their decision caused a good woman to commit suicide or worse. Other state laws are determined by state legislatures that lean toward biblical knowledge of extreme right and wrong and commit themselves to correctness as to what pleases God over what pleases someone who doesn't want the responsibility of a baby that will never have a father due to the extreme circumstances of the act that caused the union that brought the child into life at conception. I am not judging one way or another, I only know what is right for me. Even my political adversaries may not agree with my bringing up the psalm that has caused a rift between believers and doubters, believers and other believers, etc.

I place all judgment in the hands of God in spiritual matters and judgments for people with material issues in the hands of the laws that are written in sundry governing districts.
Not every believer shares my sentiments. It's complicated. If you are a person of faith, you are bound to get grief from those who have none for their reasons. In the world, there are people who chest thump over having more faith than someone sitting on the fence. IMHO, that's in God's hands. Belief and disbelief has a continuum that is more contentious in recent years than it was in Colonial times. The best we can do, imho, is live and let live. That is not everyone's mantra.

I hope that explains at least what one of us thinks who is willing to listen to both sides of the abortion issue. Each person has the right to make his own decision. It's more commonly called free will. That too, was God's gift to mankind--free will to choose for oneself what is right and what isn't.

Y'all have a nice day.

 

[forkup]

Ah so you like this political bare knuckle fighting better? At some point someone needs to take responsibility for stopping this cycle of," they do this, so we do that."

100% agree and good point.

but if this were done, to me, validates their behavior and they will do it again.

And it validates what? First both sides have done plenty of shit they shouldn't. If your honest about it, the reason the GOP is in such a hurry is that if they hold the nomination until after the midterms and they lose the senate they are afraid the Dems will play the same dirty politics they played with Garland. Secondly you still haven't established to me that objecting to someone who is credibly accused of sexual assault is unfair to begin with.

i dont view the accusation as credible.

See this is were you lose me. I can understand the assertion that her account is unsubstantiated, but incredible? What makes her account unbelievable?

past history of dnc
way too vague on necessary details
never going to police, even now
demanding fbi internevtion when that isnt their role, stall tactic not search for truth/justice
afraid to fly, has history of flying fine
pics of NOT MY PRESIDENT and the whole pussy hat shit
her lawyer is known resist

and if that wasnt enough, now 2 new guys say they were the ones who did it.

other than that its rock solid accusations.

Well like I said you go further then even Kavanaugh is willing to go. At minute 2.45 He literally says that he DOESN'T question that Ford was assaulted.

 

[AZGAL]

It is good to have a peaceful weekend after this mess of a week.

 

[iceberg]

100% agree and good point.

but if this were done, to me, validates their behavior and they will do it again.

And it validates what? First both sides have done plenty of shit they shouldn't. If your honest about it, the reason the GOP is in such a hurry is that if they hold the nomination until after the midterms and they lose the senate they are afraid the Dems will play the same dirty politics they played with Garland. Secondly you still haven't established to me that objecting to someone who is credibly accused of sexual assault is unfair to begin with.

i dont view the accusation as credible.

See this is were you lose me. I can understand the assertion that her account is unsubstantiated, but incredible? What makes her account unbelievable?

past history of dnc
way too vague on necessary details
never going to police, even now
demanding fbi internevtion when that isnt their role, stall tactic not search for truth/justice
afraid to fly, has history of flying fine
pics of NOT MY PRESIDENT and the whole pussy hat shit
her lawyer is known resist

and if that wasnt enough, now 2 new guys say they were the ones who did it.

other than that its rock solid accusations.

Well like I said you go further then even Kavanaugh is willing to go. At minute 2.45 He literally says that he DOESN'T question that Ford was assaulted.

and if he did, would he say it in todays climate?

 

[AZGAL]

Screaming into an elevator at Senator Flake was pretty unhinged.

 

[forkup]

And it validates what? First both sides have done plenty of shit they shouldn't. If your honest about it, the reason the GOP is in such a hurry is that if they hold the nomination until after the midterms and they lose the senate they are afraid the Dems will play the same dirty politics they played with Garland. Secondly you still haven't established to me that objecting to someone who is credibly accused of sexual assault is unfair to begin with.

i dont view the accusation as credible.

See this is were you lose me. I can understand the assertion that her account is unsubstantiated, but incredible? What makes her account unbelievable?

past history of dnc
way too vague on necessary details
never going to police, even now
demanding fbi internevtion when that isnt their role, stall tactic not search for truth/justice
afraid to fly, has history of flying fine
pics of NOT MY PRESIDENT and the whole pussy hat shit
her lawyer is known resist

and if that wasnt enough, now 2 new guys say they were the ones who did it.

other than that its rock solid accusations.

Well like I said you go further then even Kavanaugh is willing to go. At minute 2.45 He literally says that he DOESN'T question that Ford was assaulted.

and if he did, would he say it in todays climate?

Since he's the accused it's a weird statement. Furthermore if it's a political decision to not do it. Doesn't that speak to him not being genuine in his statement?

 

[AZGAL]

She can't even get her friend Leland to vouch that the story was true, that it happened or any such important things as that, but she was to be believed ??

Politics: Christine Blasey Ford's friend is not refuting allegation, will cooperate with FBI, lawyer says - PressFr… Christine Blasey Ford's friend is not refuting allegation, will cooperate with FBI, lawyer says

 

[iceberg]

i dont view the accusation as credible.

See this is were you lose me. I can understand the assertion that her account is unsubstantiated, but incredible? What makes her account unbelievable?

past history of dnc
way too vague on necessary details
never going to police, even now
demanding fbi internevtion when that isnt their role, stall tactic not search for truth/justice
afraid to fly, has history of flying fine
pics of NOT MY PRESIDENT and the whole pussy hat shit
her lawyer is known resist

and if that wasnt enough, now 2 new guys say they were the ones who did it.

other than that its rock solid accusations.

Well like I said you go further then even Kavanaugh is willing to go. At minute 2.45 He literally says that he DOESN'T question that Ford was assaulted.

and if he did, would he say it in todays climate?

Since he's the accused it's a weird statement. Furthermore if it's a political decision to not do it. Doesn't that speak to him not being genuine in his statement?

NOW you look for genuine statements?

 

[Redfish]

I want the FBI to investigate the envelope that Jackson-Lee slipped to Ford's lawyer. What was in it? a check? Cash? A swiss bank account number?

 

[AZGAL]

fake hysteria on fake news

 

[harmonica]

I'm sure someone has said it:
she is accusing BK of sexual assault-rape--how come she is not filing charges--NOW??!!
????
how come NO ONE is filing charges?? NOW
....so EVERYONE in the US knows BK has been accused of rape, but no AGs/lawyers/circuit attorneys/etc are not filing charges? investigating? etc
if no evidence--this is SLANDER big time

 

[AZGAL]

Bernie Sanders comes out of the peanut gallery to say Kavanaugh may have lied to Congress. YET once again there is no evidence to support his concern.

 

[forkup]

See this is were you lose me. I can understand the assertion that her account is unsubstantiated, but incredible? What makes her account unbelievable?

past history of dnc
way too vague on necessary details
never going to police, even now
demanding fbi internevtion when that isnt their role, stall tactic not search for truth/justice
afraid to fly, has history of flying fine
pics of NOT MY PRESIDENT and the whole pussy hat shit
her lawyer is known resist

and if that wasnt enough, now 2 new guys say they were the ones who did it.

other than that its rock solid accusations.

Well like I said you go further then even Kavanaugh is willing to go. At minute 2.45 He literally says that he DOESN'T question that Ford was assaulted.

and if he did, would he say it in todays climate?

Since he's the accused it's a weird statement. Furthermore if it's a political decision to not do it. Doesn't that speak to him not being genuine in his statement?

NOW you look for genuine statements?

Haven't I talked about credibility in most post? I already conceded more than once that credibility is about the only thing we have to judge the truth.

 

[EverCurious]

Over the last year or so, we have seen allegations against men on both sides of the isle, and across every industry. In all instances the men did a litany of denial's, including Trump, and in all cases the women ended up being the truth tellers, and the men were found to be lying.

This insured that Brett Kavanaugh would be swimming upstream against a river of suspicion. Dr. Ford's testimony was infallable, and Brett Kavanaugh continued to deny.

Republicans are in a corner on this issue. The Republican party already has a serious issue with women voters. 7 in 10 women view Trump unfavorably, and the party itself doesn't hold up much better. Why Republicans didn't choose a woman SCOTUS nominee to get themselves out of the mud with women, exemplifies an astounding lack of foresight.. But this party has a long history of misogyny, and old habits & ideology--lead by old white men- are difficult to correct.
Seven in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump

This is the second annual women's march in Washington D.C, January 20, 2018.

More Than 4,000 Women Say They Want to Run for Office Since Trump's Election

It's unfortunate that it took 2 women cornering Jeff Flake in an elevator today, to get him to change his mind and demand an FBI investigation into these allegations prior to confirming. This is what Dr. Ford wanted all along (prior to testifying.) Which leads one to think that she believes there is something that the FBI is going to find on Brett Kavanaugh.
Christine Blasey Ford Wants F.B.I. to Investigate Kavanaugh Before She Testifies

Surprisingly even a FOX NEWS poll suggests support of Kavanuagh is down, especially among women.
Fox News Poll: Record number of voters oppose Kavanaugh nomination

If Republicans had just confirmed Kavanaugh without an investigation, that would have been, most certainly, the final nail in their coffin with women in this country.

Women are the largest voting block in this country today. They are the power house in the voting booth.

A sleeping giant has awoken!

1st Womans March, Washington D.C. January 20, 2017--the day after Trump was inaugurated. Click thsi link and scroll through the many pages of pictures (start on page 20) & you will probably find your home state here.
Woman's march pictures

yes, you have sacrificed due process on the alter of abortion that was never even threatened.

As a woman, thank you for lending legitimate credence to the argument that women are too emotional to be allowed to vote...

The U.S Supreme court made a decision on Roe v Wader 45 years ago. It was a right leaning court that gave us Roe v Wade and it's been considered a right leaning court ever since.

I know that Republican GOP candidates like to play paddy feet with abortion activists. In fact one of Trump's and others campaign promises in 2016 was to appoint U.S. Supreme court justices so you could rid the constituion of Roe v Wade once and for all.

What you don't know, is that both Niel Gorsuch and Brett Kavanuagh have already run the Democrat gaunlet under G.W.Bush. In 2006 Democrats were the majority in the Senate, and while they denied a lot of G.W;s nominee's they confirmed both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to Federal District appeals courts.

What you don't know, is that during confirmation hearings, Niel Gorsuch is the first nominee in my memory that stated Roe v Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set in stone to you.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

In fact here are the Democrats that voted to confirm both Niel Gorsuch & Brett Kavanaugh in 2006.

The only reason Democrats tried to block Gorsuch, is simply because they were angry that Republicans didn't give Obama's last nominee (Merrick Garland) an up or down vote.

You're campaigning on abortion actually was the reason that Mitt Romney lost in 2012.
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History

The U.S. Supreme court has decided that you have no right to interfere into the personal, very private decisions that women and their families make. Roe v Wade is a U.S. Supreme court decision that is here to stay, and it never belonged on a political platform. By continually campaigning and talking about it, you are insulting the intelligence & integrity of the largest voting block in this country--WOMEN.

There is also zero fucking evidence that Kavanaugh had /any/ inclination to overturn it. In fact, he pretty much stated that it was precedence /repeatedly/.

But you folks don't care, frankly, because you're too stupid and uninformed to even know what you're protesting about.

That's what I just told you. But throughout the 2016 campaign Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindhal, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, & Scott Walker were all beating the abortion drum and campaigning on who they were going to appoint as SCOTUS nominees. You were roped a doped.

Trump even stated there should be some kind of punishment for women who have abortions.
In Context: Transcript of Donald Trump on punishing women for abortion

So don't come on here and act dumfounded as to why women have a foul opinon of the Republican party. For those of you that are confused trying reading, and redirect to these 2 posts on this thread by clicking these links.
OFFICIAL: Kavanaugh Hearings Thread
OFFICIAL: Kavanaugh Hearings Thread

Are you saying women are stupid?

Naw he's just saying he believes /everything/ the media says without question...

I suppose we really shouldn't be surprised that they believe Ford without question should we...

 

[EverCurious]

And it validates what? First both sides have done plenty of shit they shouldn't. If your honest about it, the reason the GOP is in such a hurry is that if they hold the nomination until after the midterms and they lose the senate they are afraid the Dems will play the same dirty politics they played with Garland. Secondly you still haven't established to me that objecting to someone who is credibly accused of sexual assault is unfair to begin with.

How does the word "credibly" get into this ?

Well, not even Kavanaugh himself during his testimony dared to suggest Ford was not credible. Not one GOP member suggested she was not credible. The words used were compelling and credible if I'm not mistaken. Credible is another word for believable. Doesn't mean it's true, but simply believable.

Well, not even Kavanaugh himself during his testimony dared to suggest Ford was not credible.

Denying her allegations wasn't stating as much?

I'm curious as to why her and her husband,
are in couples counseling....

You'd be amazed at the lengths,
women will go to, to keep a man

Are you not aware of what major remodeling can do to a marriage?? I guess not.

I'm actually not. I told my husband what I wanted and he said "okay dear" and pulled out his wallet. Was there supposed to be more?

 

[The Purge]

Records Show Dr. Ford is NOT a Licensed Psychologist


Testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford identified herself as a ‘psychologist,’ but records indict this is a false statement under California law. Someone at Stanford University also appears to have caught the blunder and edited Ford’s faculty page.

Just one sentence into her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford may have told a lie.

After thanking members of the committee on Thursday, and while under oath, Ford opened her testimony saying, “My name is Christine Blasey Ford, I am a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.”

The issue lies with the word “psychologist,” and Ford potentially misrepresenting herself and her credentials, an infraction that is taken very seriously in the psychology field as well as under California law.

Under California law, as with almost every other state, in order for a person to identify publicly as a psychologist they must be licensed by the California Board of Psychology, a process that includes 3,000 hours of post-doctoral professional experience and passing two rigorous exams. To call oneself a psychologist without being licensed by a state board is the equivalent of a law school graduate calling herself a lawyer without ever taking the bar exam.

According to records, Ford is not licensed in the state of California. A recent search through the Department of Consumer Affairs License Bureau, which provides a state-run database of all licensed psychologists in California, produced no results for any variation of spelling on Ford’s name. If Ford at one time had a license but it is now inactive, she would legally still be allowed to call herself a “psychologist” but forbidden from practicing psychology on patients until it was renewed. However, the database would have shown any past licenses granted to Ford, even if they were inactive.

Ford also does not appear to have been licensed in any other states outside California. Since graduating with a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Southern California in 1996 it does not appear Ford has spent any significant amount of time outside the state. She married her husband in California in 2002, and completed a master’s degree in California in 2009. She reportedly completed an internship in Hawaii, but a search of Hawaii’s Board of Psychology licensing database also did not turn up any results for Ford.

What makes Ford’s claim even more suspicious is someone affiliated with Stanford University appears to have also been aware of the potentially damning use of the word “psychologist” and rushed to cover for Ford. DANGEROUS exclusively uncovered an archived version of Ford’s page on the school’s faculty directory. On September 10, 2015, the only archived date available, Ford’s faculty page was saved to the Wayback Machine and showed Ford listed as a “research psychologist” along with her email address and office phone number.

The most recent version of that page shows Ford listed only as an “Affiliate” in the department, with the words “research psychologist” removed along with Ford’s email address and phone number. This suggests the page was altered by someone very recently to scrub Ford’s contact information and title after she entered the national spotlight.

An archived version of Ford’s faculty listing, identifying her as a “research psychologist.”

The most recent, edited version of Ford’s faculty listing.

It is common for academics and researchers in psychology to not hold a license. California law does not prohibit anyone from engaging in research, teaching, or other activities associated with psychology if they are not licensed, so long as those individuals do not use the word “psychologist” when referring to themselves publicly.

Several searches on California’s licensing database revealed many of Ford’s colleagues in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Studies at Stanford are not licensed psychologists in California, including the department chairman Laura Roberts, who identifies herself only as a professor. Of the unlicensed members of the faculty — which includes researchers, clinicians, professors, and fellows — none refer to themselves as a “psychologist” or “psychiatrist,” unless they also had a license issued in California.

Aside from potentially misleading the committee, Ford also appears to have violated California law. California’s Business and Professional Code Sections 2900-2919 govern the state’s laws for practicing psychology. Section 2903 reads, “No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.” Section 2902(c) states: (c) “A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when the person holds himself or herself out to the public by any title or description of services incorporating the words ‘psychology,’ ‘psychological,’ ‘psychologist,’ ‘psychology consultation,’ ‘psychology consultant,’ ‘psychometry,’ ‘psychometrics’ or ‘psychometrist,’ ‘psychotherapy,’ ‘psychotherapist,’ ‘psychoanalysis,’ or ‘psychoanalyst,’ or when the person holds himself or herself out to be trained, experienced, or an expert in the field of psychology.”

This appears to include titles like “research psychologist.” There is one specific exemption to the law regarding the title “school psychologist,” which refers to school counselors who do not need to be licensed. School psychologists are legally forbidden from referring to themselves as simply “psychologists.”

Whereas the term “research psychologist” may be common in academic parlance, and permissible within accredited institutions, the issue seems to be publicly presenting oneself under any title containing the word “psychologist” if a person is not licensed. Ford is a professor and a researcher, but not a psychologist. Section 2910 of the law states, “This chapter shall not be construed to restrict the practice of psychology on the part of persons who are salaried employees of accredited or approved academic institutions, public schools, or governmental agencies, if those employees are complying with the following (1) Performing those psychological activities as part of the duties for which they were hired. (2) Performing those activities solely within the jurisdiction or confines of those organizations. (3) Do not hold themselves out to the public by any title or description of activities incorporating the words ‘psychology,’ ‘psychological,’ or ‘psychologist.'”

It is unknown why Ford, 51, a seasoned academic in the field of psychology would have made such an obvious mistake unless she was unaware of the law or trying to intentionally mislead the public and members of the committee about her credentials in the field of psychology. Her bizarre testimony often veered off into psychological jargon about brain chemistry, memory storage, and how trauma effects the brain, analysis one would expect from a clinical psychologist, rather than an academic involved in research. When asked by committee members of her most vivid memory from the attack that allegedly occurred nearly 40 years ago, Ford responded, “Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two [men], and their having fun at my expense,” referring to the part of the brain mainly associated with memory. When discussing her trauma, Ford replied, “The etiology of anxiety and PTSD is multifactorial. [The incident] was certainly a critical risk factor. That would be a predictor of the [conditions] that I now have … I can’t rule out that I would have some biological predisposition to be an anxious-type person.”

Yet, Ford’s academic focus for years has been statistics, not memory or trauma. To look at her as some sort of expert in this area would be like asking a podiatrist about heart disease simply because he’s in the medical field. Still, the media ate it up. Hours after her testimony ended, various mainstream media outlets falsely identified Ford as a “psychologist” and praised her approach to science during the hearing, calling the statistician an “expert” on issues more closely related to clinical psychology.

The Washington Post ran a headline that simply read, “Christine Blasey Ford, psychologist,” The Atlantic’s headline read, “Christine Blasey Ford, A Psychologist, Testifies to Congress,” Slate‘s headline read, “Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony combined her own expert analysis of the situation,” The New Yorker‘s headline read “Christine Blasey Ford is Serving As Both A Witness And An Expert,” and the Wall Street Journal ran with “Ford’s Testimony Reminds Us That She’s A Psychologist.” As of Friday morning, Ford’s Wikipedia entry also identified her occupation as “Psychologist.” According to California law, all of these are false. Ford is not a psychologist.

The Senate judiciary committee is set to decide Friday on a date for Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote. If Ford committed perjury, she could face up to five years in federal prison.

Records Show Dr. Ford Is Not A Licensed Psychologist, May Have Committed Perjury

And because I want all you ABNORMALS to collectively lose your minds here is an
Infowars link

Records Show Dr. Ford Is Not A Licensed Psychologist, May Have Committed Perjury

There is no crime for which the Martyr of Palo Alto will ever be accused. She has transcended mortal restraint!

And regarding her “I’m so scared of airplanes” claim:

When she begged off a DC interview with the Committee, she was in DELAWARE, which is just 89 driving miles from DC; her much-vaunted “flying fears” was then a totally moot point.

A “driving delay” would give the Liberal Activist Legal Team foisted upon Ford four critical days to prepare their offence, while robbing Kavanaugh’s team of critical reaction time.

It is also not “kosher” to call oneself a professor unless one is a full tenured professor. As I understand it, she is only an adjunct, and therefore should not be referred to as “professor.”

That said, I lose track of the number of her lies, contradictions and holes to date. She should be excoriated for having the hearing delayed a week simply by claiming a fear of flying, which was quickly disproven. Her testimony was self-contradictory in the mention that the two alleged abusers went downstairs laughing and talking loudly to others downstairs, then saying she couldn't hear them at all. It is illogical to say that she left without any transportation, when her home was about 20 minutes away. She couldn't have walked to or from the alleged party alone. Left her best friend there with violent guys? No emotion in this scripted, faked performance.

By Monday, the crooked Dems will conjure something more useful than this crock.

 

[iceberg]

past history of dnc
way too vague on necessary details
never going to police, even now
demanding fbi internevtion when that isnt their role, stall tactic not search for truth/justice
afraid to fly, has history of flying fine
pics of NOT MY PRESIDENT and the whole pussy hat shit
her lawyer is known resist

and if that wasnt enough, now 2 new guys say they were the ones who did it.

other than that its rock solid accusations.

Well like I said you go further then even Kavanaugh is willing to go. At minute 2.45 He literally says that he DOESN'T question that Ford was assaulted.

and if he did, would he say it in todays climate?

Since he's the accused it's a weird statement. Furthermore if it's a political decision to not do it. Doesn't that speak to him not being genuine in his statement?

NOW you look for genuine statements?

Haven't I talked about credibility in most post? I already conceded more than once that credibility is about the only thing we have to judge the truth.

and i dont find her credible.

we need to agree to disagree n move on.