So, Kavanaugh LIED = Kavanaugh accuser breaks silence

[Doc1]

She looks credible to me...

You never showed me the 3 women, surely you can prove that?

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that even some women on here think it is no big deal that some drunk teenage boy tried to rape her, just goes to show why she didn't come out with this story back when it happened. She'd have been shunned by not only all the friends of Kavanaugh, but probably a large number of girls in her school that thought she was just trying to get attention or something.

No one believes her story, dumbfuck. She isn't credible. Are there any witnesses to this event? She claims there were three other boys involved. Does she name them? No. There were plenty of other people in the house. Have any of them supported her story? No. Can you be locked into a bedroom when the latch is on the inside? No.

So when things happen that there are no witnesses, nothing happened? Do we just say, "Fuck it!" and not investigate things unless there was witnesses? ... you're lack of intelligence continues to amaze. What makes Kavanaugh more credible than her? Oh yeah... you said because she saw a therapist. Do you have a clue how fucking stupid THAT statement is?

Pretty much. Without evidence, innocent until proven guilty.

So I must ask you, when an accuser accuses YOU of sexual assault and has no proof whatsoever, do we just say "Fuck it, he's a pervert, he's guilty"? It's a whole different ball game when its your ass on the line.

Well since I never said that... then no. But it should be investigated... and this isn't a criminal case, it's for a person to serve on the Supreme Court.

Yes, that's what you stated: We should have a trial because some wacko bitch claims she couldn't get out of a bedroom 40 years ago.

 

[bripat9643]

I understand that you pretend not to know what social mores were like in the 1980s, dumbfuck.

You don't know the differences between laws, and socially accepted attitudes. You also don't understand the difference between socially accepted attitudes and morality.

Just because some people thought it was ok to sexually assault a woman in the early 80's even if they said no, doesn't mean it was legal. And sadly, you don't understand how you are making the case as to why she didn't report it at the time.

No one considered it to be rape, you lying asshole. I heard numerous such stories when I was in high school and college, and no one ever went to jail or prison as a result.

You're a lying piece of shit who will say whatever you think will advance your sleazy despicable agenda.

I never said it was rape... I've said sexual assault. Again you prove you don't know what sexual assault is.

Let me help you a bit. Rape is sexual assault, but not all sexual assault is rape. Does that blow your mind?

Let me help you a bit: this is 2018, not 1980. It's 40 years later. Mores have changed since then.

And let me help you... it doesn't fucking matter. It was a law back then, it is still a law today... and even if someone is no longer criminally liable for it, when the accused is someone nominated for the Supreme Court, it needs to be taken seriously and investigated.

ROFL! Sorry, no it wasn't. The law is subject to interpretation, and no judge interpreted it that way in 1980, especially where high school kids were involved. You're a typical sleazy lying SJW asshole who judges yesterday's behavior by today's standards.

 

[Lewdog]

The fact that even some women on here think it is no big deal that some drunk teenage boy tried to rape her, just goes to show why she didn't come out with this story back when it happened. She'd have been shunned by not only all the friends of Kavanaugh, but probably a large number of girls in her school that thought she was just trying to get attention or something.

No one believes her story, dumbfuck. She isn't credible. Are there any witnesses to this event? She claims there were three other boys involved. Does she name them? No. There were plenty of other people in the house. Have any of them supported her story? No. Can you be locked into a bedroom when the latch is on the inside? No.

So when things happen that there are no witnesses, nothing happened? Do we just say, "Fuck it!" and not investigate things unless there was witnesses? ... you're lack of intelligence continues to amaze. What makes Kavanaugh more credible than her? Oh yeah... you said because she saw a therapist. Do you have a clue how fucking stupid THAT statement is?

Pretty much. Without evidence, innocent until proven guilty.

So I must ask you, when an accuser accuses YOU of sexual assault and has no proof whatsoever, do we just say "Fuck it, he's a pervert, he's guilty"? It's a whole different ball game when its your ass on the line.

Well since I never said that... then no. But it should be investigated... and this isn't a criminal case, it's for a person to serve on the Supreme Court.

Yes, that's what you stated: We should have a trial because some wacko bitch claims she couldn't get out of a bedroom 40 years ago.

Where did I ever say there should be a trial? Jesus you are dense. In fact I had to sit here in the thread an explain statute of limitations to someone... and explain what conviction means to you.

You don't even understand simple legal terms, and you sit here all day trying to argue shit like this. How are you not embarrassed for yourself?

 

[bripat9643]

No one believes her story, dumbfuck. She isn't credible. Are there any witnesses to this event? She claims there were three other boys involved. Does she name them? No. There were plenty of other people in the house. Have any of them supported her story? No. Can you be locked into a bedroom when the latch is on the inside? No.

So when things happen that there are no witnesses, nothing happened? Do we just say, "Fuck it!" and not investigate things unless there was witnesses? ... you're lack of intelligence continues to amaze. What makes Kavanaugh more credible than her? Oh yeah... you said because she saw a therapist. Do you have a clue how fucking stupid THAT statement is?

Pretty much. Without evidence, innocent until proven guilty.

So I must ask you, when an accuser accuses YOU of sexual assault and has no proof whatsoever, do we just say "Fuck it, he's a pervert, he's guilty"? It's a whole different ball game when its your ass on the line.

Well since I never said that... then no. But it should be investigated... and this isn't a criminal case, it's for a person to serve on the Supreme Court.

Sure and Mitt didn't pay taxes for ten years. Only you stupid lefty's are buying into any of this shit.

What the fuck does Mitt Romney and taxes have to do with this? Wow what a fucking show from left field.

His case is just one of many examples where the left crucified a Republican with the most patently obvious lies ever perpetrated.

 

[Avatar4321]

A Porn Star would be more reliable than this loon-bitch Leftist-Sociology Researcher from a Left Wing California College.

Its why they hid her until the last minute.

Try again.

I knew that she would automatically be dismissed because she's from California....how very very very predictable trumpanzees are.

she is obviously not from California if the alleged incident happened while she was growing up in MD.

And isn't being dismissed because she is from california. She is being dismissed because this is an over three decade incident that the alleged victim can't recall when it where it happened and by her own admission she was drunk at the time that she just happens to bring up at a politically opportune time

 

[Lewdog]

You don't know the differences between laws, and socially accepted attitudes. You also don't understand the difference between socially accepted attitudes and morality.

Just because some people thought it was ok to sexually assault a woman in the early 80's even if they said no, doesn't mean it was legal. And sadly, you don't understand how you are making the case as to why she didn't report it at the time.

No one considered it to be rape, you lying asshole. I heard numerous such stories when I was in high school and college, and no one ever went to jail or prison as a result.

You're a lying piece of shit who will say whatever you think will advance your sleazy despicable agenda.

I never said it was rape... I've said sexual assault. Again you prove you don't know what sexual assault is.

Let me help you a bit. Rape is sexual assault, but not all sexual assault is rape. Does that blow your mind?

Let me help you a bit: this is 2018, not 1980. It's 40 years later. Mores have changed since then.

And let me help you... it doesn't fucking matter. It was a law back then, it is still a law today... and even if someone is no longer criminally liable for it, when the accused is someone nominated for the Supreme Court, it needs to be taken seriously and investigated.

ROFL! Sorry, no it wasn't. The law is subject to interpretation, and no judge interpreted it that way in 1980, especially where high school kids were involved. You're a typical sleazy lying SJW asshole who judges yesterday's behavior by today's standards.

You never seize to amaze at how more stupid you can get.

 

[Avatar4321]

She looks credible to me...

you thought Hillary and Obama were credible too

 

[bripat9643]

No one believes her story, dumbfuck. She isn't credible. Are there any witnesses to this event? She claims there were three other boys involved. Does she name them? No. There were plenty of other people in the house. Have any of them supported her story? No. Can you be locked into a bedroom when the latch is on the inside? No.

So when things happen that there are no witnesses, nothing happened? Do we just say, "Fuck it!" and not investigate things unless there was witnesses? ... you're lack of intelligence continues to amaze. What makes Kavanaugh more credible than her? Oh yeah... you said because she saw a therapist. Do you have a clue how fucking stupid THAT statement is?

Pretty much. Without evidence, innocent until proven guilty.

So I must ask you, when an accuser accuses YOU of sexual assault and has no proof whatsoever, do we just say "Fuck it, he's a pervert, he's guilty"? It's a whole different ball game when its your ass on the line.

Well since I never said that... then no. But it should be investigated... and this isn't a criminal case, it's for a person to serve on the Supreme Court.

Yes, that's what you stated: We should have a trial because some wacko bitch claims she couldn't get out of a bedroom 40 years ago.

Where did I ever say there should be a trial? Jesus you are dense. In fact I had to sit here in the thread an explain statute of limitations to someone... and explain what conviction means to you.

You don't even understand simple legal terms, and you sit here all day trying to argue shit like this. How are you not embarrassed for yourself?

Only a sleazy lying pathetic dumbass leftwinger would imagine that I meant he would be indicted and have an actual trial, but a show trial in the Senate where your scumbag heroes can drag Kavanaugh's reputation through the mud is what you douchebags want.

You aren't going to get it.

 

[Avatar4321]

At the least the filthy dishonest Democrats are not coming up with the "pubic hair on a Coke can" lie this time.

This time it is the "he tried to rape me in High School" lie.

Anita Hill was telling the truth but in those days, it was okay to behave as C. Thomas did. They were both adults, though, and he was her boss.

I think part of the reason I am so hesitant on this accusation is that they were both kids and we grow up.

There were also THREE other women waiting to testify against Thomas, but Biden chickened out after Thomas made his "high-tech lynching" comment. The remaining THREE women were never called to testify. Hence, pervert Thomas was confirmed. Do Republicans really want another pervert on SCOTUS? We'll see...

I did not know that. I believed Anita Hill and I felt really bad for her, the walloping she took from Republicans and men in general, for speaking up.
This Kavanaugh thing seems really different to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but she seems to have had a big overreaction to the incident, as well as the fact that they were both kids. Who is the same person they were when they were 17? It just isn't apples and apples, as far as I'm concerned.

Attempted rape is attempted rape - even at 17. Kavanaugh can either confirm or deny the event. Either way, it should be thoroughly investigated - especially if he continues to deny it happened.

let's say this incident did occur. A young man and a young woman are drunk and the boy makes a move to feel her up and undress her. What exactly makes this attempted rape rather than boy makes a move and girl doesn't welcome it so he stops?

silence is deafening

 

[bripat9643]

No one considered it to be rape, you lying asshole. I heard numerous such stories when I was in high school and college, and no one ever went to jail or prison as a result.

You're a lying piece of shit who will say whatever you think will advance your sleazy despicable agenda.

I never said it was rape... I've said sexual assault. Again you prove you don't know what sexual assault is.

Let me help you a bit. Rape is sexual assault, but not all sexual assault is rape. Does that blow your mind?

Let me help you a bit: this is 2018, not 1980. It's 40 years later. Mores have changed since then.

And let me help you... it doesn't fucking matter. It was a law back then, it is still a law today... and even if someone is no longer criminally liable for it, when the accused is someone nominated for the Supreme Court, it needs to be taken seriously and investigated.

ROFL! Sorry, no it wasn't. The law is subject to interpretation, and no judge interpreted it that way in 1980, especially where high school kids were involved. You're a typical sleazy lying SJW asshole who judges yesterday's behavior by today's standards.

You never seize to amaze at how more stupid you can get.

You are always amazed by hard cold facts. Your liberal understanding of history is a big fat lie.

 

[Lewdog]

So when things happen that there are no witnesses, nothing happened? Do we just say, "Fuck it!" and not investigate things unless there was witnesses? ... you're lack of intelligence continues to amaze. What makes Kavanaugh more credible than her? Oh yeah... you said because she saw a therapist. Do you have a clue how fucking stupid THAT statement is?

Pretty much. Without evidence, innocent until proven guilty.

So I must ask you, when an accuser accuses YOU of sexual assault and has no proof whatsoever, do we just say "Fuck it, he's a pervert, he's guilty"? It's a whole different ball game when its your ass on the line.

Well since I never said that... then no. But it should be investigated... and this isn't a criminal case, it's for a person to serve on the Supreme Court.

Yes, that's what you stated: We should have a trial because some wacko bitch claims she couldn't get out of a bedroom 40 years ago.

Where did I ever say there should be a trial? Jesus you are dense. In fact I had to sit here in the thread an explain statute of limitations to someone... and explain what conviction means to you.

You don't even understand simple legal terms, and you sit here all day trying to argue shit like this. How are you not embarrassed for yourself?

Only a sleazy lying pathetic dumbass leftwinger would imagine that I mean he would be indicted and have an actual trial, but a show trial in the Senate where your scumbag heroes can drag Kavanaugh's reputation through the mud is what you douchebags want.

You aren't going to get it.

Yep, I totally get it... you think someone needs several years of judicial review to interpret what "no" means.

 

[Lakhota]

She looks credible to me...

You never showed me the 3 women, surely you can prove that?

Well, sparky, you can always Google it. However, I'll help you a little...

Three other women were willing to testify about being harassed by Thomas, too. But Biden chose not to allow one of them, Angela Wright, to testify publicly, instead releasing a transcript of a phone interview with her. Strange Justice, a 1994 book by reporters Jill Abramson and Jane Mayer, concluded the Judiciary Committee had failed to follow up leads on allegations against Thomas and had conducted only a cursory investigation. Whether such testimony would have been adequate to convict Thomas in a court of law is unclear, but perhaps also beside the point. It was as strong or stronger than the evidence that has toppled several members of Congress, including Senator Al Franken.

What About Clarence Thomas? - The Atlantic

 

[bripat9643]

Pretty much. Without evidence, innocent until proven guilty.

So I must ask you, when an accuser accuses YOU of sexual assault and has no proof whatsoever, do we just say "Fuck it, he's a pervert, he's guilty"? It's a whole different ball game when its your ass on the line.

Well since I never said that... then no. But it should be investigated... and this isn't a criminal case, it's for a person to serve on the Supreme Court.

Yes, that's what you stated: We should have a trial because some wacko bitch claims she couldn't get out of a bedroom 40 years ago.

Where did I ever say there should be a trial? Jesus you are dense. In fact I had to sit here in the thread an explain statute of limitations to someone... and explain what conviction means to you.

You don't even understand simple legal terms, and you sit here all day trying to argue shit like this. How are you not embarrassed for yourself?

Only a sleazy lying pathetic dumbass leftwinger would imagine that I mean he would be indicted and have an actual trial, but a show trial in the Senate where your scumbag heroes can drag Kavanaugh's reputation through the mud is what you douchebags want.

You aren't going to get it.

Yep, I totally get it... you think someone needs several years of judicial review to interpret what "no" means.

It actually underwent decades of judicial review, dumbass. In fact, it's still being debated.

 

[Doc1]

She looks credible to me...

You never showed me the 3 women, surely you can prove that?

Well, sparky, you can always Google it. However, I'll help you a little...

Three other women were willing to testify about being harassed by Thomas, too. But Biden chose not to allow one of them, Angela Wright, to testify publicly, instead releasing a transcript of a phone interview with her. Strange Justice, a 1994 book by reporters Jill Abramson and Jane Mayer, concluded the Judiciary Committee had failed to follow up leads on allegations against Thomas and had conducted only a cursory investigation. Whether such testimony would have been adequate to convict Thomas in a court of law is unclear, but perhaps also beside the point. It was as strong or stronger than the evidence that has toppled several members of Congress, including Senator Al Franken.

What About Clarence Thomas? - The Atlantic

"Whether such testimony would have been adequate to convict Thomas in a court of law is unclear,"

I love this shit. No wonder you idiots keep losing elections.

 

[Lewdog]

Well since I never said that... then no. But it should be investigated... and this isn't a criminal case, it's for a person to serve on the Supreme Court.

Yes, that's what you stated: We should have a trial because some wacko bitch claims she couldn't get out of a bedroom 40 years ago.

Where did I ever say there should be a trial? Jesus you are dense. In fact I had to sit here in the thread an explain statute of limitations to someone... and explain what conviction means to you.

You don't even understand simple legal terms, and you sit here all day trying to argue shit like this. How are you not embarrassed for yourself?

Only a sleazy lying pathetic dumbass leftwinger would imagine that I mean he would be indicted and have an actual trial, but a show trial in the Senate where your scumbag heroes can drag Kavanaugh's reputation through the mud is what you douchebags want.

You aren't going to get it.

Yep, I totally get it... you think someone needs several years of judicial review to interpret what "no" means.

It actually underwent decades of judicial review, dumbass. In fact, it's still being debated.

Yep, pretty hard to understand what 'no' means... I mean I can understand how you might need it explained to you, but most people don't.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Isn't it amazing that the same people who summarily dismissed Juanita Broderick's credible rape charge against Bill Clinton, the same people who dismissed Paula Jones's sexual harassment charge against Bill Clinton, the same people who dismissed Kathleen Willey's sexual harassment charge against Bill Clinton--that these same people are now falling all over themselves to hail this moonbat lady who says Kavanaugh sexual harassed her in HIGH SCHOOL?

 

[Freiheit]

Like a pack of rabid dogs you go on the attack with nothing more than an ancient allegation. There have been too many debunked, allegations for any thinking individual to believe an allegation true with out corroboration. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Is it too old fashioned for today?
Do politics override everything? Do you subjugate ethics to political considerations.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Kavanaugh accuser breaks silence over sexual misconduct allegations

The woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct has identified herself and is speaking publicly about her allegations against Kavanaugh for the first time, according to a Washington Post investigation published Sunday.

Christine Blasey Ford, now a 51-year-old professor at Palo Alto University in California, described an incident between the two in high school, alleging that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed one summer in the 1980s and forced himself on her.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, Kavanaugh LIED to The US Senate

We all know who will OK Kavanaugh 'the LIAR' = Republicans

Was Kavanaugh 'under oath' when he lied to the US Senate?

I guess this broad is looking for Liberal Superstardom, like that enjoyed by Anita Hill?

Unfortunately for her, all that's left is the vote, she isn't going to get a chance to testify, as the vote is scheduled in just a few days and there is insufficient time.

When a witness LIES to a US Senate committee there is a serious problem.

If The Hill story is correct there will be plenty of time to expose the liar & there won't be any vote.

The vote is already scheduled.

There might be hearings afterwards, in regards to a possible impeachment. But these kinds of last second lying surprise witnesses aren't persuasive.

On what grounds would you impeach him, even if it were true?

 

[Lewdog]

For all those people that keep saying this bullshit about it being "teenagers" in "high school" in the "80's," Were you as lenient on the Central Park 5? Would you say they were just being young teenagers that made a mistake? Of course not... and they were PROVEN innocent by DNA evidence despite Trump calling for them to be put to death for the crime before, and even AFTER being proven innocent.