Interesting column from the Washington Post explaining Kavanaugh's behavior. Could also apply to the POTUS. Perspective | Kavanaugh is lying. His upbringing explains why.
I said there is no proof she is lying. Your response is there is no proof she is NOT a lying? Really? That's what you've got? At best, isn't that the definition of he said, she said scenario? There's no proof either of them are lying, re: the incident. Of course there's also no proof either of them are NOT lying about the incident. I am not making any conclusions as to the alleged incident. What was plainly obvious to me, between the two of them, Kavanaugh is the only one who was definitively being dishonest at that hearing - with those specific lies I laid out. He's a politician, so that shouldn't be surprising.
Except one side is trying to destroy a man's career, the other is just defending said man. Which means nothing in terms of who is running the operation for Ford's legal team.
Wow, this is awesome. Check it out, guys. We can now assess an accused would be rapist's truthfulness under Oath based on the WaPo's estimate of their upbringing. They just put a lot of lawyers and prosecutors out of work. Well done, WaPo, well done.
So you think "Bart, have you boofed yet" - means "have you farted yet"? All these frat bros wrote to each other "have you farted yet", amidst their other references of 100 Kegs, Renate conquests, and sexual 3 somes. Oh wait, he denied that references double teaming a girl (which amazingly is exactly what Ford alleges they tried to do to her!), Devil's Triangle really meant "a drinking game". LMAO. That's totally not a lie. Yeah, I think me saying the testimony "hinting" at him being a liar was just me being too kind with my choice of words. Kind of funny you get hung up on my choice of words like that. Maybe you should try getting equally hung up on what Kavanaugh is saying - he's the one that is supposed to be Supreme Court material.
Boy that is a great one. If that is the best you liberal left can come up with you need to wave the white flag now
Good Lord...were YOU there??? ...and btw, how the hell do you belive Erica Kinsman is a bold faced perjuring liar wrt Repeis Winston, while biting hook line and sinker into every syllable uttered by Doc Ford??? K'man went to authorities the night of the incident, and submitted to a rape kit, and ID'd JW as soon as she saw him in class, less than a month later... Doc Ford sat on her laurels for 36 years, before deigning to even pretend to identify Kav to anyone. So, Leftist politics and your garnet and gold allegiance aside, what could possibly make Doc Ford's allegation more believable than Erika Kinsman's?
Such as? I've laid out some specific areas where I thought Kavanaugh was plainly lying. Give it a shot re: Ford. Where in her testimony is this "proof" she is not telling the truth? Plenty of holes/missing info in her testimony for sure. You can say "I generally don't believe her" and that is fine. But if you say there is "proof", spell it out specifically...
Farting stinks but not near as bad as these so call unprovable allegations brought forth by Ford who is a proven liar
If I knew he were guilty, I wouldn't want him on, either... What I also don't want to do is enable the sort of behavior that indicates that we should allow people to suffer consequences for actions that they may have had no part of... I don't think any negativity should head towards Ford... nor do I think any negativity should be directed at Kavanaugh, based on what we know...
But what you have laid out is the same as mine nothing but personal opinion . Opinions and 1.00 will get you a large cup of coffee at Burger King. Unless you are a senior citizen then it will only cost you .75 cents
None, and what happens if they find evidence that proves that Ford is lying? Imagine the circus that will result with that......
Only because his past has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb, and we have information to compare his statements against. What information do we have to compare her testimony against? Therapy notes weren’t provided to the committee due to them being “privileged”, but they provided those same notes to a newspaper reporter to write a story about her? So again, what do we know about her? Would investigating her past even be allowed, or would that be construed as attacking the victim? Since she is the “victim”, she gets the kid gloves treatment, but not Kavanaugh? As the victim, she has to provide nothing to prove her allegation, but Kavanaugh and Judge have to prove their innocence? She provides no evidence to support her story, but wants Judge to provide evidence that she can then use to provide more detail to her story? Even if I am innocent and have nothing to fear, pardon me if I don’t volunteer to give the person I believe is falsely accusing me more information to use to try to make her story more believable. Especially since she hasn’t provided a definitive date and location of the alleged assault. Since she hasn’t provided that, it allows her to modify her story to be more believable without any risk of contradicting herself. I would have to be a moron to give her more information she could use to modify her story to make me seem guilty.
Could you imagine the tantrums from the left if the National Review posted a story proclaiming we could tell Dr. Ford is lying based on examination of her upbringing?
