The Supreme Court nomination mess

[Tilly]

Exactly Emily this is very dangerous ANYONE could accuse ANYONE of sexual harrassment without ANY actual evidence and DESTROY that persons life, this is a very dangerous Pandora's Box and it should be NOT opened. Period.

What do you mean by “Not opened” like she should never have gone public with her story? Even if it is true, would you stand behind that statement?

Maybe when people making such accusations are totally aware of the fact that they have NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to substantiate their claim, and that it will be IMPOSSIBLE for the accused to prove a negative 38yrs later, they should just STFU? Otherwise it looks a lot like trying to DESTROY someone’s life, and that of their families too. Just a thought.

Ok, but that’s not what’s happening here. She described the situation and named 4 people. She accused Kav and his friend of being in the room and said two other teens were at the party. She has spoken about the incident in the past and taken a polygraph. So there is standing and substance behind her story. There are also a few avenues to go down for investigators to to question and explore to see what can be uncovered.

It IS exaclty what’s happening here.
She has NO EVIDENCE.

There is no conclusive evidence like a photo or video... but there is plenty of evidence that shows credibility and substance as I’ve laid out

What you’ve ‘laid out’ has not only been inaccurate, but is also simply a completely unsubstantiated and unverifiable accusation.

The only other person she named has already said he has absolutley no recollection of the alleged incident, nor anything remotely similar.

She cannot provide a date nor a location, and didn’t even mention the alleged incident to ANYONE for several decades.
NOTHING you or she has said is even remotely CREDIBLE and there is no SUBSTANCE - that is precisely the problem!

 

[Tilly]

Maybe when people making such accusations are totally aware of the fact that they have NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to substantiate their claim, and that it will be IMPOSSIBLE for the accused to prove a negative 38yrs later, they should just STFU? Otherwise it looks a lot like trying to DESTROY someone’s life, and that of their families too. Just a thought.

Ok, but that’s not what’s happening here. She described the situation and named 4 people. She accused Kav and his friend of being in the room and said two other teens were at the party. She has spoken about the incident in the past and taken a polygraph. So there is standing and substance behind her story. There are also a few avenues to go down for investigators to to question and explore to see what can be uncovered.

And changed her story several times. Her witnesses say it never happened. She won’t testify and polygraph test are not submissable in most courts. She can’t remember day, place, what the party was . Come on, if you asked your kid where the car got the dent and he came up with that you would ground him.

You’re not making a convincing argument. The two witnesses you’re talking about are the accused and they haven’t been questioned under oath. Also, if she was making up this story why would she name two boys who are friends. Why wouldn’t she just name Kavanaugh? Why would she even take a polygraph? And why would she be asking the FBI to investigate? Give an honest and direct answer please.

I already have . Her star witness, not the accused said it didn’t happen. Do you understand the false readings of polygraphs. It sounds great but means nothing. Why wouldn’t she name Kavanaugh? She isn’t asking the FBI to investigate. The lawyer said any investigation would be fine. They know it won’t be conclusive and won’t be damming. That way they can carry on their narrative.

You are dodging around answering my questions. Let’s start simple. If she was fabricating a story why would she name two boys and not just the one she is targeting?

Why even take a polygraph? Why even ask for an FBI investigation like her lawyer has requested.

None of those add up to actions that a false accuser would take

Wow! Anyone would think you’ve never ever heard that sometimes people make false accusations against others!

 

[Slade3200]

Ok, but that’s not what’s happening here. She described the situation and named 4 people. She accused Kav and his friend of being in the room and said two other teens were at the party. She has spoken about the incident in the past and taken a polygraph. So there is standing and substance behind her story. There are also a few avenues to go down for investigators to to question and explore to see what can be uncovered.

And changed her story several times. Her witnesses say it never happened. She won’t testify and polygraph test are not submissable in most courts. She can’t remember day, place, what the party was . Come on, if you asked your kid where the car got the dent and he came up with that you would ground him.

You’re not making a convincing argument. The two witnesses you’re talking about are the accused and they haven’t been questioned under oath. Also, if she was making up this story why would she name two boys who are friends. Why wouldn’t she just name Kavanaugh? Why would she even take a polygraph? And why would she be asking the FBI to investigate? Give an honest and direct answer please.

I already have . Her star witness, not the accused said it didn’t happen. Do you understand the false readings of polygraphs. It sounds great but means nothing. Why wouldn’t she name Kavanaugh? She isn’t asking the FBI to investigate. The lawyer said any investigation would be fine. They know it won’t be conclusive and won’t be damming. That way they can carry on their narrative.

You are dodging around answering my questions. Let’s start simple. If she was fabricating a story why would she name two boys and not just the one she is targeting?

Why even take a polygraph? Why even ask for an FBI investigation like her lawyer has requested.

None of those add up to actions that a false accuser would take

I dodged nothing. After reading all there is about this. I have concluded that she is lying. You may have a different view, that is your right. I don’t have to explain any further why I feel this way. I have answered. You didn’t like the answeres. That fine. I don’t accept yours. That’s fine too.

You have every right to have a different opinion. For the record I’m not saying she is telling the truth. I need to hear more to make a solid conclusion. But when I ask why she would name two boys when fabricating a story, you didn’t answer. When I asked why should would take a polygraph, you say that polygraphs are not conclusive, that doesn’t answer my question about why she would take one. When I ask why she would call for the FBI to investigate, something that could expose her lie (if she was lying) you say she isn’t asking for that... but she is through her attorney!

So yeah, you are dodging my questions

 

[Slade3200]

Ok, but that’s not what’s happening here. She described the situation and named 4 people. She accused Kav and his friend of being in the room and said two other teens were at the party. She has spoken about the incident in the past and taken a polygraph. So there is standing and substance behind her story. There are also a few avenues to go down for investigators to to question and explore to see what can be uncovered.

And changed her story several times. Her witnesses say it never happened. She won’t testify and polygraph test are not submissable in most courts. She can’t remember day, place, what the party was . Come on, if you asked your kid where the car got the dent and he came up with that you would ground him.

You’re not making a convincing argument. The two witnesses you’re talking about are the accused and they haven’t been questioned under oath. Also, if she was making up this story why would she name two boys who are friends. Why wouldn’t she just name Kavanaugh? Why would she even take a polygraph? And why would she be asking the FBI to investigate? Give an honest and direct answer please.

I already have . Her star witness, not the accused said it didn’t happen. Do you understand the false readings of polygraphs. It sounds great but means nothing. Why wouldn’t she name Kavanaugh? She isn’t asking the FBI to investigate. The lawyer said any investigation would be fine. They know it won’t be conclusive and won’t be damming. That way they can carry on their narrative.

You are dodging around answering my questions. Let’s start simple. If she was fabricating a story why would she name two boys and not just the one she is targeting?

Why even take a polygraph? Why even ask for an FBI investigation like her lawyer has requested.

None of those add up to actions that a false accuser would take

Wow! Anyone would think you’ve never ever heard that sometimes people make false accusations against others!

See when I ask specific questions and you avoid answering them to make generalized statements like that it feels like you are giving up on the debate.

 

[dave p]

And changed her story several times. Her witnesses say it never happened. She won’t testify and polygraph test are not submissable in most courts. She can’t remember day, place, what the party was . Come on, if you asked your kid where the car got the dent and he came up with that you would ground him.

You’re not making a convincing argument. The two witnesses you’re talking about are the accused and they haven’t been questioned under oath. Also, if she was making up this story why would she name two boys who are friends. Why wouldn’t she just name Kavanaugh? Why would she even take a polygraph? And why would she be asking the FBI to investigate? Give an honest and direct answer please.

I already have . Her star witness, not the accused said it didn’t happen. Do you understand the false readings of polygraphs. It sounds great but means nothing. Why wouldn’t she name Kavanaugh? She isn’t asking the FBI to investigate. The lawyer said any investigation would be fine. They know it won’t be conclusive and won’t be damming. That way they can carry on their narrative.

You are dodging around answering my questions. Let’s start simple. If she was fabricating a story why would she name two boys and not just the one she is targeting?

Why even take a polygraph? Why even ask for an FBI investigation like her lawyer has requested.

None of those add up to actions that a false accuser would take

I dodged nothing. After reading all there is about this. I have concluded that she is lying. You may have a different view, that is your right. I don’t have to explain any further why I feel this way. I have answered. You didn’t like the answeres. That fine. I don’t accept yours. That’s fine too.

You have every right to have a different opinion. For the record I’m not saying she is telling the truth. I need to hear more to make a solid conclusion. But when I ask why she would name two boys when fabricating a story, you didn’t answer. When I asked why should would take a polygraph, you say that polygraphs are not conclusive, that doesn’t answer my question about why she would take one. When I ask why she would call for the FBI to investigate, something that could expose her lie (if she was lying) you say she isn’t asking for that... but she is through her attorney!

So yeah, you are dodging my questions

I answered you didn’t like them.

 

[Tilly]

Maybe when people making such accusations are totally aware of the fact that they have NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to substantiate their claim, and that it will be IMPOSSIBLE for the accused to prove a negative 38yrs later, they should just STFU? Otherwise it looks a lot like trying to DESTROY someone’s life, and that of their families too. Just a thought.

Ok, but that’s not what’s happening here. She described the situation and named 4 people. She accused Kav and his friend of being in the room and said two other teens were at the party. She has spoken about the incident in the past and taken a polygraph. So there is standing and substance behind her story. There are also a few avenues to go down for investigators to to question and explore to see what can be uncovered.

‘Described the situation’ is nothing more than making an unsubstantiated allegation. She also keeps changing her story - 4 people/2 people.
A lie detector test has no credence whatsoever.

She did not speak about the incident for decades after it allegedly happened. One of the 2-4 other people allegedly present has said he has no recollection whatsoever of the ‘event’.

So, what we have here is a he said/she said situation, an expired SOL, and an almost 40 year gap between when the alleged thing happened and when she decided to make an issue of it.

Tell me exaclty how you’d investigate this further?

(Oh, and she can’t be sure when it happened, nor exaclty where it happened)
Laughable.

How would I investigate? I’d interview Ford, Kavanaugh and Judge... I’dask for the names of the other two teens who were at the party and interview them. Id try and get as many details from talking to those 5 individuals and see where it goes. It might go nowhere or it might go somewhere. Never know till you try.

She’s already named the two teens. And She’s already said the claim of 4 teens is wrong - an error. She doesn’t know exaclty when or where it (allegedly) happened - nearly 40 years ago FFS!

There were 5 teens at the party. Ford, Kav, Judge and two others. There were only 3 in the room during the incident, Ford, Kav and Judge. The therapy notes incorrectly said the other two teens were in the room during the incident and she clarified. Get it?

Yes I get it, but you don’t seem to.
She has stated that she told NOBODY about what happened, so the only people who can offer any insight are the 2 who were allegedly in the room with her. They’ve both ALREADY denied any knowledge of what she alleges happened. Get it yet?

 

[Tilly]

And changed her story several times. Her witnesses say it never happened. She won’t testify and polygraph test are not submissable in most courts. She can’t remember day, place, what the party was . Come on, if you asked your kid where the car got the dent and he came up with that you would ground him.

You’re not making a convincing argument. The two witnesses you’re talking about are the accused and they haven’t been questioned under oath. Also, if she was making up this story why would she name two boys who are friends. Why wouldn’t she just name Kavanaugh? Why would she even take a polygraph? And why would she be asking the FBI to investigate? Give an honest and direct answer please.

I already have . Her star witness, not the accused said it didn’t happen. Do you understand the false readings of polygraphs. It sounds great but means nothing. Why wouldn’t she name Kavanaugh? She isn’t asking the FBI to investigate. The lawyer said any investigation would be fine. They know it won’t be conclusive and won’t be damming. That way they can carry on their narrative.

You are dodging around answering my questions. Let’s start simple. If she was fabricating a story why would she name two boys and not just the one she is targeting?

Why even take a polygraph? Why even ask for an FBI investigation like her lawyer has requested.

None of those add up to actions that a false accuser would take

Wow! Anyone would think you’ve never ever heard that sometimes people make false accusations against others!

See when I ask specific questions and you avoid answering them to make generalized statements like that it feels like you are giving up on the debate.

Nope. You simply accuse people who aren’t into speculating about her motives as ‘dodging’, and that’s probably because you are making a bit of an ass of yourself by referring to her completely vague and unsubstantiated 40 year old accusations as ‘credible’ and having ‘substance’.
She can’t even say exaclty when and where it happened - hardly substantive!

 

[Tilly]

You’re not making a convincing argument. The two witnesses you’re talking about are the accused and they haven’t been questioned under oath. Also, if she was making up this story why would she name two boys who are friends. Why wouldn’t she just name Kavanaugh? Why would she even take a polygraph? And why would she be asking the FBI to investigate? Give an honest and direct answer please.

I already have . Her star witness, not the accused said it didn’t happen. Do you understand the false readings of polygraphs. It sounds great but means nothing. Why wouldn’t she name Kavanaugh? She isn’t asking the FBI to investigate. The lawyer said any investigation would be fine. They know it won’t be conclusive and won’t be damming. That way they can carry on their narrative.

You are dodging around answering my questions. Let’s start simple. If she was fabricating a story why would she name two boys and not just the one she is targeting?

Why even take a polygraph? Why even ask for an FBI investigation like her lawyer has requested.

None of those add up to actions that a false accuser would take

I dodged nothing. After reading all there is about this. I have concluded that she is lying. You may have a different view, that is your right. I don’t have to explain any further why I feel this way. I have answered. You didn’t like the answeres. That fine. I don’t accept yours. That’s fine too.

You have every right to have a different opinion. For the record I’m not saying she is telling the truth. I need to hear more to make a solid conclusion. But when I ask why she would name two boys when fabricating a story, you didn’t answer. When I asked why should would take a polygraph, you say that polygraphs are not conclusive, that doesn’t answer my question about why she would take one. When I ask why she would call for the FBI to investigate, something that could expose her lie (if she was lying) you say she isn’t asking for that... but she is through her attorney!

So yeah, you are dodging my questions

I answered you didn’t like them.

When Slade doesn’t like the answers and can’t refute them, his go to response is you’re ‘dodging’.

 

[dave p]

I already have . Her star witness, not the accused said it didn’t happen. Do you understand the false readings of polygraphs. It sounds great but means nothing. Why wouldn’t she name Kavanaugh? She isn’t asking the FBI to investigate. The lawyer said any investigation would be fine. They know it won’t be conclusive and won’t be damming. That way they can carry on their narrative.

You are dodging around answering my questions. Let’s start simple. If she was fabricating a story why would she name two boys and not just the one she is targeting?

Why even take a polygraph? Why even ask for an FBI investigation like her lawyer has requested.

None of those add up to actions that a false accuser would take

I dodged nothing. After reading all there is about this. I have concluded that she is lying. You may have a different view, that is your right. I don’t have to explain any further why I feel this way. I have answered. You didn’t like the answeres. That fine. I don’t accept yours. That’s fine too.

You have every right to have a different opinion. For the record I’m not saying she is telling the truth. I need to hear more to make a solid conclusion. But when I ask why she would name two boys when fabricating a story, you didn’t answer. When I asked why should would take a polygraph, you say that polygraphs are not conclusive, that doesn’t answer my question about why she would take one. When I ask why she would call for the FBI to investigate, something that could expose her lie (if she was lying) you say she isn’t asking for that... but she is through her attorney!

So yeah, you are dodging my questions

I answered you didn’t like them.

When Slade doesn’t like the answers and can’t refute them, his go to response is you’re ‘dodging’.

I’ve noticed.

 

[The Purge]

Maybe when people making such accusations are totally aware of the fact that they have NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to substantiate their claim, and that it will be IMPOSSIBLE for the accused to prove a negative 38yrs later, they should just STFU? Otherwise it looks a lot like trying to DESTROY someone’s life, and that of their families too. Just a thought.

Ok, but that’s not what’s happening here. She described the situation and named 4 people. She accused Kav and his friend of being in the room and said two other teens were at the party. She has spoken about the incident in the past and taken a polygraph. So there is standing and substance behind her story. There are also a few avenues to go down for investigators to to question and explore to see what can be uncovered.

‘Described the situation’ is nothing more than making an unsubstantiated allegation. She also keeps changing her story - 4 people/2 people.
A lie detector test has no credence whatsoever.

She did not speak about the incident for decades after it allegedly happened. One of the 2-4 other people allegedly present has said he has no recollection whatsoever of the ‘event’.

So, what we have here is a he said/she said situation, an expired SOL, and an almost 40 year gap between when the alleged thing happened and when she decided to make an issue of it.

Tell me exaclty how you’d investigate this further?

(Oh, and she can’t be sure when it happened, nor exaclty where it happened)
Laughable.

How would I investigate? I’d interview Ford, Kavanaugh and Judge... I’dask for the names of the other two teens who were at the party and interview them. Id try and get as many details from talking to those 5 individuals and see where it goes. It might go nowhere or it might go somewhere. Never know till you try.

She’s already named the two teens. And She’s already said the claim of 4 teens is wrong - an error. She doesn’t know exaclty when or where it (allegedly) happened - nearly 40 years ago FFS!

There were 5 teens at the party. Ford, Kav, Judge and two others. There were only 3 in the room during the incident, Ford, Kav and Judge. The therapy notes incorrectly said the other two teens were in the room during the incident and she clarified. Get it?

But can't remember where this supposedly took place, the date, and even not sure of the year....let alone ANY EVIDENCE that this isn't made up in her mixed up mind or perhaps a dream. As she wanted Kav!!...We will NEVER know!...Oh, I forgot the most likely thing...a LIE!

 

[Crepitus]

Wait, I thought Ford said she never told anyone ?

What a tangled web we receive when we practice to deceive

"weave"

Gotta love auto correct

Sorry, but I was told in no uncertain terms just last night (by one of your conservative colleagues) when I said the same thing that only idiots and morons use autocorrect. Eye terned myn off inn shame.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Wait, I thought Ford said she never told anyone ?

What a tangled web we receive when we practice to deceive

"weave"

Gotta love auto correct

Sorry, but I was told in no uncertain terms just last night (by one of your conservative colleagues) when I said the same thing that only idiots and morons use autocorrect. Eye terned myn off inn shame.

I should give a shit why exactly?

Let me help you out, you're nothing to me

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Wait, I thought Ford said she never told anyone ?

What a tangled web we receive when we practice to deceive

"weave"

Gotta love auto correct

Sorry, but I was told in no uncertain terms just last night (by one of your conservative colleagues) when I said the same thing that only idiots and morons use autocorrect. Eye terned myn off inn shame.

I'n hard headed like that.
It zorces me to improve my spelling.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Wait, I thought Ford said she never told anyone ?

What a tangled web we receive when we practice to deceive

"weave"

Gotta love auto correct

Sorry, but I was told in no uncertain terms just last night (by one of your conservative colleagues) when I said the same thing that only idiots and morons use autocorrect. Eye terned myn off inn shame.

I'n hard headed like that.
It zorces me to improve my spelling.

It's not working

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What a tangled web we receive when we practice to deceive

"weave"

Gotta love auto correct

Sorry, but I was told in no uncertain terms just last night (by one of your conservative colleagues) when I said the same thing that only idiots and morons use autocorrect. Eye terned myn off inn shame.

I'n hard headed like that.
It zorces me to improve my spelling.

It's not working

Shirley you realize I did that on porpoise.

 

[Crepitus]

Wait, I thought Ford said she never told anyone ?

What a tangled web we receive when we practice to deceive

"weave"

Gotta love auto correct

Sorry, but I was told in no uncertain terms just last night (by one of your conservative colleagues) when I said the same thing that only idiots and morons use autocorrect. Eye terned myn off inn shame.

I should give a shit why exactly?

Let me help you out, you're nothing to me

Lol, conservitards have no sense of humor.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Crepitus]

Wait, I thought Ford said she never told anyone ?

What a tangled web we receive when we practice to deceive

"weave"

Gotta love auto correct

Sorry, but I was told in no uncertain terms just last night (by one of your conservative colleagues) when I said the same thing that only idiots and morons use autocorrect. Eye terned myn off inn shame.

I'n hard headed like that.
It zorces me to improve my spelling.

Ok, one conservative has a sense of humor.

 

[Maxdeath]

And changed her story several times. Her witnesses say it never happened. She won’t testify and polygraph test are not submissable in most courts. She can’t remember day, place, what the party was . Come on, if you asked your kid where the car got the dent and he came up with that you would ground him.

You’re not making a convincing argument. The two witnesses you’re talking about are the accused and they haven’t been questioned under oath. Also, if she was making up this story why would she name two boys who are friends. Why wouldn’t she just name Kavanaugh? Why would she even take a polygraph? And why would she be asking the FBI to investigate? Give an honest and direct answer please.

I already have . Her star witness, not the accused said it didn’t happen. Do you understand the false readings of polygraphs. It sounds great but means nothing. Why wouldn’t she name Kavanaugh? She isn’t asking the FBI to investigate. The lawyer said any investigation would be fine. They know it won’t be conclusive and won’t be damming. That way they can carry on their narrative.

You are dodging around answering my questions. Let’s start simple. If she was fabricating a story why would she name two boys and not just the one she is targeting?

Why even take a polygraph? Why even ask for an FBI investigation like her lawyer has requested.

None of those add up to actions that a false accuser would take

I dodged nothing. After reading all there is about this. I have concluded that she is lying. You may have a different view, that is your right. I don’t have to explain any further why I feel this way. I have answered. You didn’t like the answeres. That fine. I don’t accept yours. That’s fine too.

You have every right to have a different opinion. For the record I’m not saying she is telling the truth. I need to hear more to make a solid conclusion. But when I ask why she would name two boys when fabricating a story, you didn’t answer. When I asked why should would take a polygraph, you say that polygraphs are not conclusive, that doesn’t answer my question about why she would take one. When I ask why she would call for the FBI to investigate, something that could expose her lie (if she was lying) you say she isn’t asking for that... but she is through her attorney!

So yeah, you are dodging my questions

She originally told a therapist that there were four boys in the room others were in the house and more were outside. Since the letter came out she bows claims that the notes taken by the therapist are wrong.

She claims she does not know who was responsible for the party.
She claims she does not know how she got there.
She claims she does not know where the party was.
She claims she does not know on what date it happened.
She claims she does not know how she got home.
She claims she told no one until 2012 when she told a therapist.

Both of the boys say they have never seen anything or done anything even similar.
She has a reason to hate Kavanaugh in that his mother was involved as the judge in her parents foreclosure. Considering the foreclosure one can assume that the Kavanaugh's had more money.
She hates Trump and wrote a letter against his policies.

Suddenly another woman who was not in her circle of friends says that she heard about it but does not know any particulars. How did she hear about it if the accussor did not tell anyone?

The FBI did six background checks on the guy and found nothing. Now suddenly all the people that claimed they should be believed are saying that they missed things.

There are so many holes in her story that you could fly a 747 through it and not hurt the paint.

 

[eagle1462010]