Jump to content

Ford-Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Allegation


WestCanMan

Recommended Posts

Just now, betsy said:

hahahahahaha :lol:  Hahahahaha

Best not to reply to trolls/sock puppets.

If I were falsely accused I would do everything to fight back including questioning the accuser's testimony.  IMO they've allready done their damage, even if/when cleared he will be stigmatized forever, the Dems have done their jobs, which I think, could be payback for his part in the Clinton investigation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than attack assaulted women, why not be relevant and defend Kavanaugh. He lied about how he got into Yale. He lied about the stolen emails. He lied about “devil’s triangle”. He lied about “boufing”. He lied about how much he drank. He lied about not watching Dr. Ford’s testimony. He lied about the witnesses' testimony. He lied about not attending a party  like the one described. All under oath. 

You will ignore each of those examples because they are indefensible. So that's why, in desperation, you attack Ford. I guess her honour and courage really eat at you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Best not to reply to trolls/sock puppets.

If I were falsely accused I would do everything to fight back including questioning the accuser's testimony.  IMO they've allready done their damage, even if/when cleared he will be stigmatized forever, the Dems have done their jobs, which I think, could be payback for his part in the Clinton investigation.  

He lied. What's a sock puppet? Some lame attempt to save face because you have no defence other than attack an innocent woman who has more character and courage than you can even imagine?

Best not to reply, you're right. You just keep digging your hole deeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Don Jonas said:

Are you saying people should ignore credible sexual assault allegations against a potential Supreme Court justice? 

Did you know Trump (who BTW was just exposed in a massive tax fraud) called her allegations "credible"? You're saying it should all be ignored? Should they investigate the lies Kavanaugh told under oath? I'm not sure what you're getting at, other than you hate Democrats.

I believe he said "compelling".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

I believe he said "compelling".

Both sides should be investigated, fairly, not just the accused, but our ideas of fairness and innocent until proven guilty seems not to apply in some cases..

Somebody is escalating and ramping up attacks - weird but that's the way it goes I guess... 

Edited by scribblet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scribblet said:

So it's not okay to be in public office if you drank a lot school,  but it's okay to be President if you did coke.

Meanwhile Ms. Ford hasn't been entirely truthful.  N York Post reported on the polygraph but not the rest of his statement.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm

And now we know the answer as to why she took a polygraph, it was because she (as a psychologist) knew she could manipulate it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Both sides should be investigated, fairly, not just the accused, but our ideas of fairness and innocent until proven guilty seems not to apply in some cases..

Somebody is escalating and ramping up attacks - weird but that's the way it goes I guess... 

"Some cases," like job interviews, yes. That's always been the case.

The ramped up attacks on Ford were predictable as soon as they realized how many times Kavanaugh lied under oath. They knew they would have to focus on destroying her if they were ever going to be successful. Vile, but par for the course with these people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FBI investigations' expected to wrap up today.......but, Ford hasn't been interviewed by the FBI......yet.  Just refer solely to that hearing statement?

Hmmmmmm.   No given chances of making any corrections, eh? 

Perjury seems to be loooming up, closer and closer.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Don Jonas said:

Rather than attack assaulted women, why not be relevant and defend Kavanaugh. He lied about how he got into Yale. He lied about the stolen emails. He lied about “devil’s triangle”. He lied about “boufing”. He lied about how much he drank. He lied about not watching Dr. Ford’s testimony. He lied about the witnesses' testimony. He lied about not attending a party  like the one described. All under oath. 

You will ignore each of those examples because they are indefensible. So that's why, in desperation, you attack Ford. I guess her honour and courage really eat at you.

 

Spare me the CNN histrionics. Do you know what Devil’s triangle is? Did you ever even hear of it before this case? I googled it and I just found a bunch of crap about Kavanaugh on Urban Dictionary. 

Can you put all those words in context? I know he used them but I don’t know how he used them. He was a teenager writing about stuff in a private journal. If he felt like it was incriminating he wouldn’t have provided it. 

And who is to say that he lied about how much he drank? He has hundreds of character witnesses backing that claim and a couple people going against it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Spare me the CNN histrionics. Do you know what Devil’s triangle is? Did you ever even hear of it before this case? I googled it and I just found a bunch of crap about Kavanaugh on Urban Dictionary. 

Can you put all those words in context? I know he used them but I don’t know how he used them. He was a teenager writing about stuff in a private journal. If he felt like it was incriminating he wouldn’t have provided it. 

And who is to say that he lied about how much he drank? He has hundreds of character witnesses backing that claim and a couple people going against it. 

 

You're trying to say he has hundreds of character witnesses that deny he was a drunk? Not true. One of his character witnesses denied he was an aggressive drunk, but it turned out that guy was arrested in a bar fight Kavanaugh started. So it sounds like he wasn't telling the truth either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Don Jonas said:

"Some cases," like job interviews, yes. That's always been the case.

The ramped up attacks on Ford were predictable as soon as they realized how many times Kavanaugh lied under oath. They knew they would have to focus on destroying her if they were ever going to be successful. Vile, but par for the course with these people.

You're confusing legitimate criticism of her testimony as "attacks".  That's absurd.  Her story doesn't make any sense.  She says she was raped.  Can''t remember where it happened, or when it happened.  Nobody can corroborate any of her story.  Give it up, it's over.   Even the sex crimes expert that was there for the hearing said that based on the evidence, this allegation couldn't go anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump is a certifiable moron. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/politics/jeff-flake-donald-trump-christine-blasey-ford/index.html

 

Quote

 

Three Republican senators who will be crucial to deciding whether Brett Kavanaugh reaches the Supreme Court hit out at President Donald Trump on Wednesday after he unleashed an attack on Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused the judge of sexual assault.

Trump's mockery of Ford at a campaign rally on Tuesday night intensified political pressure on senators Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine as they consider how they will vote on Kavanaugh.
Collins told CNN's Manu Raju that the comments were "just plain wrong." She would not say if they would affect her vote.
 
Murkowski said that Trump's remarks were "wholly inappropriate, and in my view unacceptable." Asked whether the President's attack would sway her vote, she answered: "I am taking everything into account."
 
 
Flake, whose reservations about Kavanaugh led to Trump requesting a supplemental background check on his nominee last week, also condemned the President's comments.

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Canadian - so I don't have an emotional investment in this debacle - only an almost humorous interest in the sordid Trump and anti-Trump politics that play out through the various partisan factors. In a detached fashion, I can see a personally abhorrent - but surprisingly effective President - fighting a spoiled, arrogant, rudderless group of so-called Democrats. Again - in a detached fashion, what I see is the media and democrats expending a huge amount of effort (and money) to track down any and all evidence of anything even slightly dubious in Kavanaugh's statements or his background - and yet next to zero effort to bring to light the lack of corroboration in Ford's testimony. You can bet that Democrats and the media have searched high and low to find somebody, anybody, anything that could help corroborate her story. Yet there's nothing - and as the story unfolds, several of her statements that helped yo weave the story, are unraveling. As for Kavanaugh's temperament - how would you react if your career, family life and integrity were being ruined by something that wasn't true? I'm a pretty calm guy - but I couldn't just be cool about it - unless I was guilty.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Don Jonas said:

You're trying to say he has hundreds of character witnesses that deny he was a drunk? Not true. One of his character witnesses denied he was an aggressive drunk, but it turned out that guy was arrested in a bar fight Kavanaugh started. So it sounds like he wasn't telling the truth either.

He’s said to have started one fight in his adult life, so from 1985 until now, and you’re calling him an aggressive drunk? 

Is one fight really proof that Kavanaugh is a belligerent drunk? Or the fact that one of his friends ended up in jail?

Can a successful rape case be brought against basically anyone who has been in a bar fight now?

Does one fight automatically prove that a person is unfit to ever serve as a SCJ?

C’mon DJ, let’s keep things in perspective. 

The Dems would do anything to keep a Trump-nominated judge from the SC. They’ve already tried every dirty trick in the book, now the best they have is “he got in a bar fight”. 

LMAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as two years ago the Republicans were insisting it was undemocratic to seat a Supreme Court justice too soon before an election, it just a little hypocritical to be trying to ram through a perverted drunk* just weeks before voting day.

* I figured since my colleagues on the right are saying Ford is guilty of lying with little to no evidence, I shall declare Kavanaugh a perverted drunk based on the more credible evidence I have backing up that position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Don Jonas said:

Then the existence of Neil Gorsuch must blow your mind, I guess.

The Dems did everything they could to stop Gorsuch too. He didn’t even have one of them on his side until it was well known that every single Republican and the Vice President were going to push him through. Then 3 Dems stepped up hust so that they could get vited in again after his nomination was basically a done deal. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The Dems did everything they could to stop Gorsuch too. He didn’t even have one of them on his side until it was well known that every single Republican and the Vice President were going to push him through. Then 3 Dems stepped up hust so that they could get vited in again after his nomination was basically a done deal. 

 

It would have been completely pathetic if they rolled over after that Garland episode, don't you think? Still, by your description, they rolled over. 

And nobody came forward to speak negatively of his character because his character was fine. No conspiracy. No pathetic whining and blaming of everybody but those responsible for nominating a belligerent lying drunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Don Jonas said:

It would have been completely pathetic if they rolled over after that Garland episode, don't you think? Still, by your description, they rolled over. 

And nobody came forward to speak negatively of his character because his character was fine. No conspiracy. No pathetic whining and blaming of everybody but those responsible for nominating a belligerent lying drunk.

Are you an American? You seem to be very emotionally invested in this topic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

.......The Dems would do anything to keep a Trump-nominated judge from the SC. They’ve already tried every dirty trick in the book, now the best they have is “he got in a bar fight”. 

LMAO

They said right from the get go they would not vote for any appointee, so it was in the cards anyway.  Booker (call me Spartacus) says he shouldn't be appointed even if he's cleared.  Last I heard was that Ford's ultra resistance lawyers are obstructing as they won't hand over paperwork. 

IMO women are most upset about the Kavanaugh injustice because they see their sons, fathers, husbands, and uncles in a wrongly accused man that has had his reputation and family destroyed on baseless 35 year old claims that are political driven.   It's the politically driven and 

Juanita Broderick wants an FBI probe - now - remember - all women must be believed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...