Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[Amarok]

So, if your standard is that once a person is caught in a lie, we can't trust anything they say - fine, Ford can't be trusted about the assault.

Is Beta Fail honestly comparing fibbing about a fear of flying to Kavanaugh long list of lies  relevant to the crime !!! . Is he honestly trying to compare a fib to a the straight up lying Kavanaugh did  relevant to the crime !!!   !!! lies the judge his moral character to sit as a life time employee of the federal government.

[Joods]

So, if your standard is that once a person is caught in a lie, we can't trust anything they say - fine, Ford can't be trusted about the assault.

Is Beta Fail honestly comparing fibbing about a fear of flying to Kavanaugh long list of RELEVANT TO THE CRIME!!! lies . Is he honestly trying to compare a fib to a the straight up  RELEVANT TO THE CRIME!!! lies the judge his moral character to sit as a life time employee of the federal government.

But Ford didn't fib about having a fear of flying. Having a fear of flying doesn't =/= to not ever flying at all. 

Regardless - as I said previously, she's not vying for a lifetime appointment to anything. He is.

[Amarok]

Is Beta Fail honestly comparing fibbing about a fear of flying to Kavanaugh long list of RELEVANT TO THE CRIME!!! lies . Is he honestly trying to compare a fib to a the straight up  RELEVANT TO THE CRIME!!! lies the judge his moral character to sit as a life time employee of the federal government.

But Ford didn't fib about having a fear of flying. Having a fear of flying doesn't =/= to not ever flying at all. 

Regardless - as I said previously, she's not vying for a lifetime appointment to anything. He is.

Oh i thought Beta Fail may have actually  found some evidence of her lying about that .But unsurprisingly it's just his lack reasoning skills  . Thanks for the correction Jood

[Angrboda]

More Republican bullshit. Honestly, Republicans have no shame.

In an unprecedented move, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday released an explicit statement that purports to describe the sexual preferences of a woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of misconduct.

The statement, which was circulated to the hundreds of journalists on the Judiciary Committee’s press list, was from Dennis Ketterer, a former Democratic congressional candidate and television meteorologist who said he was involved in a brief relationship with Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick in 1993.

---

“At the same time the committee refuses to provide documents, they don’t hesitate to provide this piece of garbage,” Avenatti said Tuesday afternoon in a phone interview.

---

Avenatti used Twitter on Tuesday to release a written declaration from a second woman whose statements supported Swetnick’s claims. The woman, whose name was redacted in the document Avenatti posted, said she “witnessed firsthand Kavanaugh and others spike the punch at house parties with quaaludes and/or grain alcohol.”

Republicans on Senate panel release explicit statement about Kavanaugh accuser’s sex life

[LadyForCamus]

Aaaand, cue Trump mocking, and telling blatant lies about Ford’s testimony at a rally today.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/02/politic...cnn.com%2F

I’ve truely had enough of this.

[Cecelia]

It's disgusting how people still treat sexual assault survivors. And then wonder why women don't report.

"THINK OF YOUR SONS!" they say, but never "Think of your daughters!" it's because to them women don't count. They never will. Any woman who votes Republican at this point has no respect for herself.

[Angrboda]

The prosecutor hired by Republican senators to question Christine Blasey Ford has declared that Ford’s allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh are so weak that no “reasonable prosecutor” would pursue the case.

“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that,” Rachel Mitchell, a Repub­lican sex-crimes prosecutor from Arizona, wrote Sunday in a five-page memorandum, highlighting what she described as inconsistencies in Ford’s account and a lack of corroboration from potential witnesses.

Though Senate Republicans said the memo was helpful, legal experts from both political parties and advocates for victims of sexual assault on Monday questioned how Mitchell could reach such a conclusion without a fuller investigation and without the ability to cross-examine witnesses such as Mark Judge, the only other person Ford says was in the room when the alleged incident occurred in the summer of 1982.

“As a former prosecutor myself, I’ve come to no conclusion other than the conclusion that there needs to be more facts to come to a conclusion,” said Douglas Wigdor, an employment lawyer who has represented plaintiffs in sexual assault and harassment cases. Wigdor, a Republican, called the memo “a joke” and “preposterous.”

---

Matthew Long, a defense attorney who once worked for Mitchell as a sex-crimes prosecutor, was quoted as calling her “the best” in a story in a local newspaper last week, before the memo was issued. On Monday, Long said he was surprised to see that she cited Ford’s gaps in memory as evidence of the weakness of her allegation.

“The things that she’s highlighting that say that Dr. Ford is not credible are the very things she has taught me to ignore and not rely on,” he said in an interview. The memo, he said, “demonstrates she’s abandoned what she knows to be true in favor of being a political operative.”

(Washington Post)

[DodosAreDead]

I was talking about this whole issue with my father a little while ago. He seems to think that even if these accusations turned out to be true, Kavanaugh shouldn't be blocked from being nominated for something he did yeahs ago in high school and college when 'everyone is young and wild'. Now, to be fair, my dad doesn't condone sexual assault at all, but seems to think that since so many years have passed this is beyond the statute of limitations or whatever. Idk... I dislike this argument lol. If he is proven to have sexually assaulted people back then, he should still face the legal repercussions now. 

Personally I think it's highly fishy that this has all come out just as he was nominated. I'm not surprised at the time that has passed between assault and accusation, the whole 'we were ashamed to come forward' argument makes sense, and it could happen. But if the three women were ashamed to come forward, why did they manage to shake it off now? Just as he was nominated? I feel like I definitely believe them, but as a left leaning female I'm biased. 


(PS I'm all over the place with this post, I really shouldn't write posts just as I'm about to go to class lol)

So you retract your original post then, and accept that the main Kavanaugh defence is bullshit?

Because to me, you are still trying to push that weaselly defence, and push the other repugnant linethat the Democrats have no morals bringing this to public scrutiny.  Because to me there is no comparison between a party who would hold a senator accused ofsexual harassment to proper account and the party so mad to elevate a likely attempted child rapist to the highest judicial office that they'd flatout refuse to hold any inquiry but a kangaroo court desighed to destroy his victim.

Bold Mine

When did I push anything of the sort, Wololo? When? 
Quoted my own post for your convenience, sire.

[Pat Mustard]

Some democrats are ready to possibly end up destroying a man's life based on a false accusation

You want to lie, that's fine. You want to have me buy the lie, that's not fine.

It is obvious that you're one of the basket of deplorables that would excuse every evil Dumbfuck does because he's an R beside his name.

I seriously hope you will never be in Christine Blasey Ford's position.

---

The prosecutor hired by Republican senators to question Christine Blasey Ford has declared that Ford’s allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh are so weak that no “reasonable prosecutor” would pursue the case.

“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that,” Rachel Mitchell, a Repub­lican sex-crimes prosecutor from Arizona, wrote Sunday in a five-page memorandum, highlighting what she described as inconsistencies in Ford’s account and a lack of corroboration from potential witnesses.

Though Senate Republicans said the memo was helpful, legal experts from both political parties and advocates for victims of sexual assault on Monday questioned how Mitchell could reach such a conclusion without a fuller investigation and without the ability to cross-examine witnesses such as Mark Judge, the only other person Ford says was in the room when the alleged incident occurred in the summer of 1982.

“As a former prosecutor myself, I’ve come to no conclusion other than the conclusion that there needs to be more facts to come to a conclusion,” said Douglas Wigdor, an employment lawyer who has represented plaintiffs in sexual assault and harassment cases. Wigdor, a Republican, called the memo “a joke” and “preposterous.”

---

Matthew Long, a defense attorney who once worked for Mitchell as a sex-crimes prosecutor, was quoted as calling her “the best” in a story in a local newspaper last week, before the memo was issued. On Monday, Long said he was surprised to see that she cited Ford’s gaps in memory as evidence of the weakness of her allegation.

“The things that she’s highlighting that say that Dr. Ford is not credible are the very things she has taught me to ignore and not rely on,” he said in an interview. The memo, he said, “demonstrates she’s abandoned what she knows to be true in favor of being a political operative.”

(Washington Post)

What did you expect? She's from Arapaio's lawless hellhole.

[John V]

No, because I don't care about extraneous issues, whether for Kavanaugh or Ford.

You should care. It goes to credibility.

So, if your standard is that once a person is caught in a lie, we can't trust anything they say - fine, Ford can't be trusted about the assault.

Why? Because of her statement about not being able to fly? That has fuck all to do with assault.

I really don't understand how you can contradict yourself like that in a single post and not see it.  

---

Ford's former boyfriend on Ford and polygraphs, fears:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christi...unds-alarm

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...graph.html

In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.

He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a "very small," 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.