Because it's a dumb allegation with no corroborating evidence. But here you are, again, putting words in other people's mouth. You just can't help it.
Biased evidence. Taken with a grain of salt. Like Kavanaugh and his friend denying the allegations. At least I can admit it is biased and not act like it is a smoking gun proving Kavanugh’s guilt.
If verbal testimony isn't evidence, then why do even we have witnesses who've been sworn to tell the truth sit through often excruciating direct and cross examination? For the entertainment value? Of course it's evidence, but it's up to the trier of fact to discern truthfulness.
Well to start … over five dozen people (including former girl friends) signed a letter stating their multi-year friendship with and experiences with Kavanaugh left them believing without exception that he could not, did not so what was alleged. That's a very good start …. if not more than enough to support his assertion he did not do what has been alleged. Specifically what else needs to be done? On what basis do you think this gets beyond Ford claiming she was assaulted by Kavanaugh and his denial of the allegation? And why does Kavanaugh need to prove anything?
The capitol building is not a public forum. BYNUM v. U.S. CAPITOL POL | 93 F.Supp.2d 50 (2000) | upp2d501139 | Leagle.com https://www.uscp.gov/sites/uscapito...S. Capitol Grounds Demonstration Area Map.pdf
Why isn’t anybody answering my simple question... If verbal testimony is evidence, then my satirical claim that Kamala Harris eats babies is backed by evidence. Do you agree or disagree... Not hard, champ
So she correctly anticipated that Kavanaugh would be the nominee and decided to preemptively stop it?
If you're willing to testify to it under oath, yes, it's evidence. It's not credible evidence, but it's evidence.
I'm pointing out that when Kavanaugh was rumored to be a possible SCOTUS nominee, only then did Dr. Ford start saying it was him to anyone other than her husband.
He is demonstrably a crotch grabber. Bragged about it and was accused of it by about a dozen women. There's a sound basis for it, just as there is basis for labelling Clinton wrt his sexual harassment and assault. Or HRC for putting her personal aspirations over national security. Besides, crotch grabber in chief is the "gentile" description. Using the language that Trump used is against board rules. But if it makes you happy, I'll certainly refrain from using that label. I'm not a fan of Toad as a label either... completely ruined Mario Kart for me. Deceiver in chief works well. Jon Lovitz is still in awe of what Trump has accomplished in that realm. Truly legendary. Joking aside, the main point here is not to use baseless subjective labels on people or groups.
Verbal testimony is considered evidence in a trial. You take an oath to tell the truth, so you would need to believe and stick by your baby eating story. The evidence is also cross examined to find flaws with the testimony. Then the jury or judge weigh the testimony and decide whether it's credible based on everything they heard and whatever other evidence is presented.
According to Dr. Ford, her therapists notes are wrong. The notes said it was four boys, now Dr. Ford says it was two. Why should we believe Dr. Ford's memory of what she told the therapist versus what was written down at the time?
And I'm pointing out that she had already described him in a way that made it quite clear whom exactly it was. I'm not going to ignore that because a bunch of conspiracy theories that don't pass the smell test.
Keep telling yourself that... haha... It’s almost like it’s so ridiculous... you believe that my claim is not backed by evidence despite multiple testimonies from multiple people... Hmm
What is TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE? definition of TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary) If you want to perjure yourself with a silly Kamala Harris hypothetical, perjure away, but that doesn't mean your assertion isn't evidentiary. Evidence isn't synonymous with truthfulness. Just ask George Papadopoulos.
