It was obvious, he was either evasive or lying on every "hard" question he got. I was amazed at how unable to compose himself and unprofessional the guy was. The questions about "boofing" or "Devil's Triangle", if they were what he said they were (which was most certainly a lie), then why get so agitated? Probably because he knew he was lying. It couldn't have possibly been surprising those references had to be asked in the context of the hearing. Hell, even the practiced line he kept repeating over and over again, that the witnesses "exonerated" him, EVEN THAT IS A LIE. I don't know if a single supposed witness "exonerated" him, they merely said they didn't recall anything from the alleged night. That is not the same thing. A supposed higher legal mind, he should know that is not the same thing.
Could also do the same using photographs of Donald Trump together with almost any national Republican politician with the caption that "conservative politicians have no problem with a self-admitted sexual predator".
Disingenuous still. You guys are moving from 3 witnesses “collaborating” to now “won’t back up claims”. That movement shows me the putrid filth of the right doesn’t even sit well with true believers.
Yes she was, but it was the partially bald attorney with the beard who actually advising Blasey Ford during the hearing.
Yeah, that was what I thought you would do which is why I already addressed it. Yes, Katz is one of 17 non-paid board members for an organization which " investigates and works to expose waste, fraud, abuse, and conflicts of interest in the U.S. federal government." Pretty serious subversive stuff. Also on the board is Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. And, yes, Soro's Open Society is one of its many donors. So is Charles Koch, who donates to many conservative organizations.
It is not helpful to her claim that those witness don't recall that specific night. It also doesn't "exonerate" Kavanaugh as he claims. The only guy that was in the room was supposedly Judge, and of course as an alleged accomplice he would also deny it. So a denial from him wouldn't exactly be an "exoneration" of anyone either. The fact that Kavanaugh claims 4 witnesses "exonerate him" is actually a lie, he knows this is a lie, any Republican who is a lawyer and repeated that knows it is a lie. To exonerate Kavanaugh, IMO, would take something proving the woman was never there or making it all up. Otherwise it is he said, she said. There is no proof that she is lying about anything at all at this point. But there are a quite few hints that Kavanaugh was lying throughout the hearing (such as the notion that witnesses "exonerate" him - a lie he repeated many times, the meaning of "Boofing" and "Devil's Triangle" and "Renate Alumnus", that he was not a "heavy drinker", etc.)
Starting to get very old but having no recollection and saying an event never happened are not the same and the difference is more than a matter of semantics. Although it's almost impossible to determine if Kavanaugh was lying regarding the allegation of sexual assault, it's a virtually certainty that Kavanaugh was lying about his drinking habits in high school and college which have been corroborated by credible witnesses and will almost certainly be further corroborated by the FBI.
I love how the goalposts have already been moved. FBI investigation has to be through and not artificially bounded. Dr. Ford remembering seeing Mark Judge working at a Safeway = Kavanaugh is a guilty. If Columbia Country Club doesn’t have visitor logs from 36 years ago, something is amiss.
Trump was the lesser of two evils. He was less corrupt than Hillary. And, no, Trump never admitted to being a sexual predator. He was full enough of himself to say that he "could" grab a woman by her privates if he wanted to. That is not a confession of past behavior. That is arrogance and insensitivity.
Ergo "...a determination made thereupon". Finder of fact 'accepting it', would constitute such. ...and it inevitably requires notice, as a matter of due process, to adverse parties before being 'accepted' (other than something like a matter of probable cause, which by definition makes it 'evidence' and not proof).
So now we go back to a 16 year old year book Make a fool of your self and have at it. And there is no proof she is not a liar. Just her flimsy word.
Hints. So now we convince some one on hints. That is a new standard even for liberals. Of course when you have nothing else hints beat nothing
He denied all of the allegations of sexual assault (threatened to sue for defamation, but never did), but the implication of his statement regarding grabbing female genitalia rather than implying consent could easily be construed to imply that the victims wouldn't complain because the perp was a "star" not necessarily because they were ok with the behavior.
On the three witnesses who don't remember anything, does anyone here know what the three might have been doing when Ford came down the stairs and left? For all we know, they could have wandered into the kitchen, to get more beer from the fridge or whatever. (People at parties don't necessarily just sit around.) The only people sitting in the living room when Ford came through and left could have been the two laughing drunks. Maybe her friend Leland later asked where she was and was drunkenly told that she left. Leland might have asked her about it the next day or whenever and Ford didn't want to talk about it. IOW if it happened, you had to be there to know how it all went down 36 years ago.
How else would you treat an accusation dropped at the last possible moment, at the most politically convenient time, after debate about Kavanaugh’s nomination had been closed? The accusation having no independent corroborating evidence, and that the ranking minority member of the committee had ~2 weeks advance knowledge of, refused to bring up during the debate period, and also refused to investigate herself due to the fact it would tip off Republicans of the allegation? How else can that be interpreted other than the allegation being used as a political insurance policy against Kavanaugh? Dumb luck? Coincidence that the accusation was leaked when it was? Or just typical beltway politics.
