If this is true, why not have a full investigation that will help prove it to be true? And why hold the hearing today if the question of credibility wasn't at hand? You may want the claims to not be true, but that doesn't make you right. And so far, Dr. Ford has seemed very credible.
I think that was part of her "this is all political" argument - that the first time an FBI investigation was requested was when the Committee staff tried to schedule a hearing and that when she wanted to come forward what she did was to hire a lawyer who was recommended to her by name by Feinstein's office and to take a polygraph exam on the advice of that lawyer and others, not to try to initiate any investigative process. Certainly an odd way to word it though.
Actually, one does. And the others say that she described him as a federal judge. How many federal judges did she socialize with? How many federal judges did she socialize with could be elevated to SCOTUS? Her descriptions make it quite clear that it was Kavanaugh.
I believe that was the stated plan, at least thats what was reported. Personally I would hope she would question him as well. What will you say in the Dems play hard ball with BK in place of the speeches they gave Ford?
Partisanship has nothing to do with it for me...….need more than just a DNC connected individual with a guaranteed lifetime job to make an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claim If the evidence changes.....so would my opinion
Oh well. He already has the appointment of a lifetime. It's a job interview. It's his job to prove his fitness. He's not being deprived of his liberty.
Nah, her question was directed at how Ford's lawyers didn't follow the normal procedure to get at what happened in other similar cases, but instead requested a polygraph. So they are assuming she is telling the truth without digging into it and investigating her claims.
I will say what I already said. The grandstanding was silly. They should have just ceded the floor if they weren't going to ask questions.
The only thing this proved is that the democrats have zero interest in getting to the truth of the event.
Sad that some people only believe those with the same political bent as they do. And everyone else is either a liar or has ulterior motives. Speaks to the sad, partisan world we live in. If the situations were reversed, and the judge nominated by a D and accuser an R, it wouldn't change my opinion.
Why? So that you can come up with another excuse for why it's basically impossible to properly corroborate an attempted rape that occurred 36 years ago? We all know what Judge is going to say, just like we know what Kavanaugh is about to say. Side note: could the Committee not have moved to subpoena Judge? If so, I have a hard time seeing Grassley declining that request.
Grassley did decline that request. Both Democrats and the accusers repeatedly requested that he subpoena Judge. He's the one who had the power. He didn't do it.
BS, absolute BS. My nephew was raised right, great kid. Home from college on break and dumps his crazy ass girlfriend. What does she do, she files a complaint for Sexual and Physical Abuse. It is a very long and bizarre story but in the end, after around $20K in legal fees, the complaint was dropped, the restraining order lifted, and now she is the one with the RO against her. The only thing that saved his ass was a neighbors security camera and some rather unusual evidence obtained from his car. If you ever have a son, you better realize and realize quickly that he can be a target of this. My guess at this point would be that you will change your tune before your son is a grown man once you see the shit that these boys have to deal with today. My son is just entering high school. I've already told him about his cousin's ordeal and had his cousin talk to him before his first homecoming dance.
And there was concrete proof in both of those situations, not merely allegations and affidavits stating that she had told people about the event 25+ years after the fact. Clinton had the little blue dress, which provided physical evidence that backed up the story told by Monica Lewinski to Linda Tripp. Absent that little blue dress, you would have called Linda Tripp a liar and referred to this as another “vast right wing conspiracy” against Bill Clinton. After the photo surfaced of Franken pretending to honk the woman’s boobs while she was asleep, he could no longer deny the allegations and had to admit she was telling the truth. So physical proof and confessions of guilt versus accusations without any physical proof and denials of guilt. Not remotely the same. The difference between Kavanaugh and the two you cited is there is no concrete proof that Kavanugh did anything to that woman. Only her allegation and the statement of others that she told them about the allegations. The other allegations are also he said, she said with no concrete proof or coroborating witnesses. Kavanaugh drinks or (allegedly) spikes punch and was present at a party doesn’t equal Kavanaugh rapes women. It’s a BS argument to try to equate the above situations to the Kavanaugh situation.
Sounds like justice was served. You just demonstrated to us why I am right. It's hard to make a credible false allegation.
