
He denied knowing her. So who's lying? You sound like you don't believe him but that you believe that she knew him and that she was at parties with him. What's your theory, then, why she picked him out to destroy out of all the boys in those circles? |
Explain this. Ford contacted the office of her Congressional Representative Anna Eschoo and the Washington Post on July 6. I'll even rely on RWNJ favorite the Gateway Pundit for that cite; https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/must-see-updated-timeline-of-christine-blasey-fords-contacts-with-democrats/ Kavanaugh was not nominated until three days later on July 9. At the time Ford contacted Eschoo and the Post, Trump was considering a shortlist of 5 candidates: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-supreme-court-nominee-shortlist-3-main-qualities-2018-6 So how did Ford know to prepare her allegations against Kavanaugh and why haven't accusers come out with allegations against the others on the shortlist? |
I think they are actually the one troll who keeps coming back. I hope someone is paying her for this. |
He may not have known her.. but she evidently knew him. She said her connection to him was through the guy she was dating. There were lots of people in HS and college that may not have known me, but I knew them. Why she picked him out? I’ll leave that to you to figure out. As my mom used to say, “God gave you a brain. Use it." |
No one who says "I have voted Democrat" has actually voted for the Democratic party. We hear you loud and clear. |
No, you're the one alleging that she targeted him with a convoluted ruse to bring him down. You have to convince me why she would do that. I don't see any evidence why she would. Not a single thing that makes me say, wow she had it out for him for years. Unless, of course, he had assaulted her. |
We don’t know that others haven’t. If the process works like it is supposed to, these allegations would be taken up by the SJC in private and not publicly disclosed. So, we really don’t know what allegations may have been made and against whom. Unfortunately, Feinstein or someone in her office, or Eshoo saw to it that this process would turn into a circus. |
Hmmm... according to her, she first disclosed his name to her husband in 2012. Why is that date significant? Because, he was on the short list for Romney in the event he won the presidency and SCOTUS had a vacancy. Is it making sense now? |
So you are now arguing that four other potential Supreme Court nominees may have been accuse of sexual assault and none of us knows about it? That's convincing. |
DP. How in the world would you know that? Are you saying that someone who usually votes for the Republican has never voted for the Democrats? I'm one. I have in the past, and I plan to again this cycle. (Kaine.) |
No, it doesn't. Why did she have such venom for this particular person on a short list for SCOTUS back in 2012. You need to convince me that she, who didn't work in politics, wasn't a laywer, and who moved far away from DC, was keeping close track of possible SCOTUS nominees (really?? I keep close track of politics and I had no idea he was on a short list back in 2012) -- why she hated him so much that she then started her ruse to take him down, that she was preparing to go for the long term should he be nominated, all out of some apparently random hatred for him. Seems pretty convoluted to me. |
I am saying we have no way of knowing what allegations may have been thrown at any of them. We just don’t. Do you believe that NO allegations of anything were ever leveled at past SCOTUS nominees who are currently sitting on the bench? Or, nominees who were on the “short list?” I can say with some confidence that there have been allegations raised in the past that we know nothing about. Because we’re not supposed to. This process is supposed to be confidential. But, this one wasn’t. And, we know why it wasn’t. |
No, I'm saying we all recognize that shortening of the proper term Democratic to Democrat (as in "the Democrat party" or "I will not vote Democrat again") has a long history among partisan Republicans as a way of passively agressively thumbing their noses at Democrats and the Democratic party (see how those two words are used properly?). Grassley did it at the hearings last week. Republicans think they're being so subversive but they sound childish. |
I am a liberal and have no idea what you are saying. But I think its pretty clear that everyone is long past passive aggressive and has moved full on into aggressive aggressive. The word 'democrat' is commonly understood and known. I always intentionally stayed away from 'Democratic' party because it felt a little bit like co-opting the word democratic which has a robust and important meaning that has nothing to do with the political parties. |
So much winning!!!!! Brett will soon be on SCOTUS and I hope he trolls you by swearing in as "Bart." |