Surely not, because the polygraph he described includes a number of baseline questions that didn't exist in Ford's examination. Keep lying to yourself...
Yeah this one is even juicier. Third-hand information about an accuser who shall remain anonymous. Hell, that's more infallible than the poly. Game set match.
Just pull Kavanaugh and nominate Amy Coney Barrett or Thomas Hardiman. You can have your fifth vote on Roe with Coney Barrett. Hardiman has an established record and is strong on the Second Amendment. Put one of those two on the Court. You get exactly what you want. I don't know why Republicans are insisting on trying to ram through a guy who seems to have more sexual assault allegations emerge with each day that passes. Can you imagine if you put that guy on SCOTUS and another 10 women come forward?
Yeah. It's not like there are three other accusers who have come forward and put their own reputations on the line by publicly accusing Kavanaugh....Oops. There is a pattern being established here. Kavanaugh gets drunk and assaults a woman. Maybe not enough evidence to convict in court, but is this really a man we want on the SCOTUS?
She needs to identify herself in order to have credibility, or Her mother needs to withdraw the accusation.
Republicans: "Why should we believe Dr. Blasey? Sexual predators never stop at one." Also Republicans: "Each new accusation only proves what a smear job this is."
And all of these assumptions could be disqualified if there was even a small amount of corroborating evidence that any of these things happened.
I just read Blasey Ford's opening statement for the hearing tomorrow. It's believable. That does not mean I think he's guilty, but this is likely enough to sway at least 2 or 3 GOP senators to vote him down. I think he's done. Tomorrow will be an interesting day.
Not saying there isn't a lot of smoke, but this post seems a bit one sided. Aren't there more people who would be lying/perjuring themselves who claim it didn't happen, at least on the second one. On the first one I think they said they couldn't recall the event Ford claimed happened, but that may be due to the lack of specificity? I am skeptical of the last two, but Ford's account seems like it could be credible and the three put together maybe carries some weight if at least two are true.
That's what I'm talking about. And Mike Judge. He's qualified. Look at his name. That whole group can kick it old school.
Hard to disagree. A lot better than I was expecting and assuming she doesn't do or say anything to contradict herself during the proceedings, I think BK is done.
