I’m sorry, but if you can build up the courage to fly and watch the boys play at The Swamp, you can find a way to muster up the courage to fly to DC because Congress has asked you to. (Leaving out the obvious that they offered to come to her in the first place)
In the end, the woman DID fly to D.C. She testified that is how she got there. So I don't understand that line of attack. She said she has anxiety about flying, but she does it anyway. Ok. And?
Possibly because her story is too full of inconsistencies (ie lies). Were there 2 boys in the room or 4. Was she 15 or in her late teens? Also, why did her family members not sign her letter of character, only her in laws. Could it be that they know her true self?
As I said, I don't think hiring black coaches is wrong. You seem to believe that. Go litigate that issue in the proper thread.
Well he was “mistaken about at least one thing. Brett Kavanaugh wrongly claims he could drink legally in Maryland at the age of 18 | Daily Mail Online
Yeah, if Congress offered to come to me, and a Gator Natty was played here in town, I'm all over it. I just don't think that her assertion that she has a fear of flying yet flies anyway makes her by definition a liar. For me, it's a good thing they have bars in airports .
“I don’t think we have enough evidence of wrongdoing to block Kavanaugh’s appointment.” That could have been the end of it. Instead, we need to get to the point of mocking this woman? Why is this necessary? Because she thinks she was attacked by some guy who you probably had never even heard of until a few months ago?
"My friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school, and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone." "Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers." Kavanaugh hearing: Transcript BTW, Dailymail is usually garbage and unreliable.
I enjoy mocking people who lie under oath to Congress, whilst attempting to destroy a person's career and reputation. I guess that makes me a sadist. Shoot me.
And your evidence that she lied is what exactly? We know he lied, based on the recollection of his classmates that said that the yearbook stuff was exactly what you would think it was (many of them put the same phrases in their yearbook profiles at the same time). So why aren't you mocking him for lying under oath? Unless it isn't really lying that is the concern to you...
Well, she probably waited because she didn't want to trample on the solemnity of the anniversary of September 11.
That’s it? That’s all we need to lock her up for perjury? And if Kavanaugh’s parents didn’t sign a letter, should we suddenly be locking him up for attempted rape? Of course not. If you want to prove someone is lying, normally you need a lot evidence that something else is true, and that person knows this. We can’t just intuit guilt using small tangential points, or “boof” would probably be enough on its own.
Delay, delay, delay, character assassination at work. There is nothing wrong with having emotions. For Feinstein to sit on that allegation, to release it when she did is nothing more than dirty political tricks. So yes, getting angry at the crap he and his family was put through is reasonable. If he puts politics into his Supreme Court rulings, then impeachment would be an option. Until then, you are speculating, and grasping for another reason not to confirm him. Your alleged lies by Kavanaugh are also grasping at straws. You have no proof that he was lying. Those kids are not tied to dictionary or slang definitions for the words they use. They can make up whatever meaning they want for words. Regarding how he characterized the witness statements, he was correct. You are being obtuse for arguing he is lying just because the statements by the witnesses have wiggle room in them to cover their asses. No lawyer will let their client definitively attest to something that happened 35+ years ago, especially when that statement comes with the threat of perjury. If they believed that something had happened or had any memory of it, they would have stated that in their sworn statement, instead of saying they had no recollection. Each of those statements definitively state that no one remembers that party occurring but Ford or even having Kavanaugh and Ford attend the same party. So he was accurate in his characterization that the witness statements backed up his version of the story that the event didn’t happen.
There are other ways to view his perspective, no doubt, but if the guy wants to make a big point of how politics are broken, he shouldn't help with the further breaking of it. Kavanaugh lied under oath in front of Congress multiple times (the number of times is really a matter of perspective, but no reasonable, logical argument has that number under 2). I understand why Kavanaugh did so (after the Fox News interview, if he came out and said those were all sex mentions, he would look untrustworthy, and if he came out and said "I used to blackout on occasion," he would both look untrustworthy and open himself to a line about whether this happened when he was blacked out). In addition, he took very little personal responsibility for why he was there and went on a rant about how this was the Clinton's revenge (with no evidence of course). Flake had an opportunity to make a stand and say that this wasn't okay with pretty limited repercussions. He chose not to do that without really much of a reason why, as I would imagine that we could easily find Flake voting against nominees for things a lot less serious than not being beyond the shadow of a doubt guilty of criminal activity. So that standard is, frankly, arbitrary for him.
You find it believable that he used 3-4 common sex references/slang in ways in which nobody has ever heard of their use as terms before? You really believe that this guy has never had enough drinks to become inebriated enough to pass out?
Presumption of "innocence" for the accuser is not a part and has never been a part of our legal system nor should it be.
