The Circus Show...
- Thread starter long-duc-dong
- Start date
This woman can't remember details from a month ago, who paid for her polygraph. Didn't know the investigators were willing to come to California because of her fake fear of flying.
She's obviously been coached to sound like a child. No corroboration. People are so desperate to believe this farce it's a total joke.
She's obviously been coached to sound like a child. No corroboration. People are so desperate to believe this farce it's a total joke.
Right now. As in...at this very moment.
You are also all in. On the opposite side.
How this day goes has nothing to do with how those three are going to vote. They knew months ago.
Fake news. If there was any evidence I would say off with his head. There isn’t. Just a couple of scum bag lawyers and nutty dem senators. Are you even Listening to this lady?
if this was called right now I would say she is leading in opinions...of course, Kavanaugh still has to be interviewed. I don't think the repubs are going to pressure here on anything thinking Kavanaugh has some info that will discredit her. Just a guess. If Kavanaugh doesn't have that type of info, then Kavanaugh is probably done. I haven't seen or heard anything here to put Kavanaugh over the goal line with the votes. But, we'll see. She is vague when it counts but still can play that card she's been coached to play....helpless dummy role.
I fully think that she 100% believes that she is telling the truth - regardless if it is actually factually correct.
What’s it been five minutes? Take a kitty cat Xanax and relax.
Haven’t watched...just here to say the required burden of proof for a criminal conviction is MUCH higher than my personal burden of proof required to decide not to appoint someone on the highest court in the land.
Easy. Because you saying that her telling the truth is that her account is factual. I think that's crap.
My post saying that she believes her crap is different from your stance.
mitchell finished up
with the polygraph
lack of cognitive interview
at feinstein instruction
instead acquiescing to interview in 5 minute increments
chuk tod spins this into mitchell waving white flag and R failure
been jammin goes back to cutting off
dog balls satisfied this woman was truthful
I'm a little surprised that you feel there's a moral litmus test to be confirmed at all
Nope.
That’s because I understand the proper application of burdens of proof in civil situations vs. criminal situations.
I’ve not hired....hell, I’ve fired...people for suspicions of misconduct that I couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
And I was perfectly justified legally and morally in doing so.
I’m not sure what you mean by that. I didn’t claim that there’s a moral litmus test to be confirmed. I do think a person’s character is a valid consideration in deciding whether someone should be appointed though. (Revised to say that I now see what you meant by that when I talked about my personal burden of proof....yes, I think there is a certain minimum level of good character, truthfulness, and respect for fellow human beings and the law that would factor into a personal decision whether or not to confirm).
TC asked if someone could convict him on the evidence being presented.
I pointed out that’s irrelevant to the question of whether he should be appointed or not.
That’s all I did.
This entire circus today has been bull crap.
She said nothing new that wasn't already in her written accusation and presented no corroboration of proof. And any time someone asked her a question that could be used to corroborate evidence she conveniently didn't remember well enough to answer.
Like I said, the Salem witch trials on modern display.
She said nothing new that wasn't already in her written accusation and presented no corroboration of proof. And any time someone asked her a question that could be used to corroborate evidence she conveniently didn't remember well enough to answer.
Like I said, the Salem witch trials on modern display.
it's ok to be tainted...we're all tainted. What I was saying is that if you had vote on this your vote was decided a long time ago...there are no facts to determine guilt or innocence...it's a judgement call based on peripheral information. I've got to wait for the whole story to come out and it probably won't happen with this brief interview or whatever it is. This thing now rests with Cavanaugh's statements...that will determine everything. He doesn't seem to be the type of guy who can pull this off. And, btw, this whole thing doesn't pass the sniff test but the boulder is already rolling down the mountain so it doesn't matter.
Yeah, it's kind of hard for me to differentiate that when he has been portrayed as some serial rapist.
That is also not correct.
If I had to vote, I would have paid much more attention to what is going on.
If I had to vote, yes...I’d have to vote...make a judgment call....on the limited information that had been made available to me...as will all of them.
Since I don’t have to vote....my vote has never...and will never...be decided. Long ago or otherwise.
The "details" of Dr. Ford's victimization are so "seared" into her memory that the searing created a giant black hole through which all of the actual details disappeared.
Amazing.
Michelle Malkin
Amazing.
Michelle Malkin
I feel for this Ford woman, she is clearly an emotional basket case. Go back and read her student reviews from before any of this ever came out. Many said her class was horrible, she was unstable and vindictive, they recommended other students not take her class.
She couldn't remember if she gave the Washington Post documents, her polygraph consisted of TWO questions yet she made it sound like an hours long torture test.
When asked about who gave her advise she was confused and was actually looking at the Democrats like she needed someone to tell her what to say.
This woman has been put through this because the Democrats don't give a damn about her well being they just know they want to get to the mid-terms and pray they take the Senate.
They may get their wish if the Republicans f this up, which I have confidence they probably will. A lot of them have the backbone of a jellyfish when confronted by the win at all costs Democrats. Others have been humiliated by Trump and may very well screw the country to stick it to him.
She couldn't remember if she gave the Washington Post documents, her polygraph consisted of TWO questions yet she made it sound like an hours long torture test.
When asked about who gave her advise she was confused and was actually looking at the Democrats like she needed someone to tell her what to say.
This woman has been put through this because the Democrats don't give a damn about her well being they just know they want to get to the mid-terms and pray they take the Senate.
They may get their wish if the Republicans f this up, which I have confidence they probably will. A lot of them have the backbone of a jellyfish when confronted by the win at all costs Democrats. Others have been humiliated by Trump and may very well screw the country to stick it to him.
I said, "she appears to be telling the truth". I did not say that her account is factual.
The only question here is whether or not the Senators on the fence will believe her story. If they think she is more credible than Kav, they are not likely to push him through.
This he said/she said could all be avoided by getting Mark Judge and other individuals to share testimony.
As I said, I haven’t watched.....but it is important to differentiate between those.
That was a pretty misleading statement by you then if that was the point you were trying to make.
You really find that to be amazing? I can think of plenty of events that occurred 30+ years ago that I will never forget. For example. Once, during my junior or senior year of HS, I almost fell out of the back of my buddy's truck while we were going about 40 mph in traffic. Another buddy grabbed me by the shirt and hauled me back in. Probably saved my life. I can picture the whole thing clearly, and tell you whose truck we were in and the name of the guy who saved me. But, I can't tell you what street we were on, what the date was, where we were going, etc.
Read my posts prior to that. It has been my constant talking point ITT. She is convincing and does not appear to be making her story up. Things may feel differently after Brett gets his chance. We shall see.
He and all the others have sworn under oath they have no memory or knowledge of this incident.
What the hell is saying it in front of a bunch of blowhards going to change? You just want to see him denigrated and disparaged which is exactly what the Dems would try and do. The Democrats refused to participate in his questioning, under oath, by investigators. That tells you all you need to know about their wanting to get to the "truth".
Similar threads
