Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story Ford told about Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist. She told her therapist four boys, all in high society. Mark Judge would not be considered high society as a writer I think. Also she had the year wrong. Probably something like this happened when she was older and could drive home, but that wouldn't work as Kavanaugh would not have been in high school then.
I think if Trump had switched the order of his nominations, we would have heard the same accusation by Ford against Gorsuch, who went to the same school and is younger by two years.

This is really deranged. Why didn’t she accuse Gorsuch when he was actually nominated if she was just going to accuse anyone, in this weirdo view?

Democrats were not going all out to stop Gorsuch, because he was replacing a Republican appointee though they weren't happy about swapping Kennedy for someone who they thought was conservative. They went all out for Thomas who was replacing Marshall. Gorsuch was only going to get lesser opposition, like Alito, Roberts, and before that Souter who ended up being a liberal on the court. If Kavanaugh had been the first appointee he would have had no issues, and gotten the same vote as Gorsuch(still a lot of no votes).

I don't even get the strategy though other than to just throw mud. The democrats knew they were going to get someone they didn't like. It was pretty obvious from the beginning that Ford had little actual data to support her claim so no real reason to bring her testimony forward as an actual crime and it wasn't at all related to any work he did as a judge or anything related to work. So it was just to throw mud around and paint an anti-feminine picture of the GOP for future elections.

Crime? Be serious. A jack-ass drunk high school fake alter-boy bro that assaults another teen is not going down for a crime. The point is to keep such poor character off SCOTUS. SCOTUS should have better.

Statute of limitations was up on this long ago.
It's more about moral terpitude. I served on a professional licensing board and that was one of the necessary traits for licensure, I'd doubly expect the same for SCOTUS appointees.

Do you actually have people come forth and make accusations that haven't gone through court? Would you listen to them? Or would you refer them to the court that makes sense for the criminal offense first. I think as a licensing board you can review past offenses. Not new ones that come up out of nowhere. And wouldn't they have to be related to the license being sought? If you were reviewing an engineer you might listen to some new testimony of an engineering offense not on record, but I can't see someone reviewing a domestic violence accusation that had no proof.

MOST people, appointees or otherwise, DO NOT get random accusations.

Most committees don't pay attention to random accusations. Unless, they are Feinstein, Whitehouse, etc.

Ford's accusations were orchestrated from the very beginning. With the help of her "beach" friend.
Just look at Whitehouse and what he "found."

Are we really going to let these types of accusations with no foundation stand?

You realize you are saying that a woman who was assaulted saying under oath that she was assaulted has "no foundation" for telling what happened to her. So if there isn't video or a witness you are willing to believe, then it didn't happen?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story Ford told about Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist. She told her therapist four boys, all in high society. Mark Judge would not be considered high society as a writer I think. Also she had the year wrong. Probably something like this happened when she was older and could drive home, but that wouldn't work as Kavanaugh would not have been in high school then.
I think if Trump had switched the order of his nominations, we would have heard the same accusation by Ford against Gorsuch, who went to the same school and is younger by two years.

This is really deranged. Why didn’t she accuse Gorsuch when he was actually nominated if she was just going to accuse anyone, in this weirdo view?

Democrats were not going all out to stop Gorsuch, because he was replacing a Republican appointee though they weren't happy about swapping Kennedy for someone who they thought was conservative. They went all out for Thomas who was replacing Marshall. Gorsuch was only going to get lesser opposition, like Alito, Roberts, and before that Souter who ended up being a liberal on the court. If Kavanaugh had been the first appointee he would have had no issues, and gotten the same vote as Gorsuch(still a lot of no votes).

I don't even get the strategy though other than to just throw mud. The democrats knew they were going to get someone they didn't like. It was pretty obvious from the beginning that Ford had little actual data to support her claim so no real reason to bring her testimony forward as an actual crime and it wasn't at all related to any work he did as a judge or anything related to work. So it was just to throw mud around and paint an anti-feminine picture of the GOP for future elections.

Crime? Be serious. A jack-ass drunk high school fake alter-boy bro that assaults another teen is not going down for a crime. The point is to keep such poor character off SCOTUS. SCOTUS should have better.

Statute of limitations was up on this long ago.
It's more about moral terpitude. I served on a professional licensing board and that was one of the necessary traits for licensure, I'd doubly expect the same for SCOTUS appointees.

Do you actually have people come forth and make accusations that haven't gone through court? Would you listen to them? Or would you refer them to the court that makes sense for the criminal offense first. I think as a licensing board you can review past offenses. Not new ones that come up out of nowhere. And wouldn't they have to be related to the license being sought? If you were reviewing an engineer you might listen to some new testimony of an engineering offense not on record, but I can't see someone reviewing a domestic violence accusation that had no proof.

MOST people, appointees or otherwise, DO NOT get random accusations.

Most committees don't pay attention to random accusations. Unless, they are Feinstein, Whitehouse, etc.

Ford's accusations were orchestrated from the very beginning. With the help of her "beach" friend.
Just look at Whitehouse and what he "found."

Are we really going to let these types of accusations with no foundation stand?

You realize you are saying that a woman who was assaulted saying under oath that she was assaulted has "no foundation" for telling what happened to her. So if there isn't video or a witness you are willing to believe, then it didn't happen?

Sure, if it happened to her. There is no evidence that it did--except for what she said. People were interviewed and no one she said was present remembered. Only one person came forward and said she heard about it at --except sch She couool was not in session and she later admitted to lying.
She couldn't remember how she got home. She couldn't remember where it was. The stairs changed from 'short" to "narrow" or vice versa.

NO one corroborated her story. She said she knew nothing about lie detector tests--yet a former boyfriend said she had coached the "beach friend" when she took one for the FBI.
The timeline didn't fit, either.

And, please do not forget--she said there were four then two. And, while a threat of assault is scary--she never said she was raped.

The story was rolled out by Feinstein's staff very slowly. They had the story months before and waited until they were ready to vote to bring it forward. It was orche4strated. Period.

It happened. Period.

DP. No. It didn't. The end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story was rolled out by Feinstein's staff very slowly. They had the story months before and waited until they were ready to vote to bring it forward. It was orche4strated. Period. Important point. Hail Mary pass.

+1
It could have been "investigated" as soon as Feinstein was told about it - though I have no idea how one "investigates" a 35+ yr. old allegation of groping. Regardless, she sat on it so the Democrats could have their big, dramatic moment (which they love) in a truly sordid attempt to block his confirmation. So glad their slimy tactics did not work.

BTW, I was groped as a teen by Kenny M. This was also about 35 years ago. To whom should I report this non-story and how will we go about investigating it?

Anonymous wrote:The story was rolled out by Feinstein's staff very slowly. They had the story months before and waited until they were ready to vote to bring it forward. It was orche4strated. Period. Important point. Hail Mary pass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story Ford told about Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist. She told her therapist four boys, all in high society. Mark Judge would not be considered high society as a writer I think. Also she had the year wrong. Probably something like this happened when she was older and could drive home, but that wouldn't work as Kavanaugh would not have been in high school then.
I think if Trump had switched the order of his nominations, we would have heard the same accusation by Ford against Gorsuch, who went to the same school and is younger by two years.

This is really deranged. Why didn’t she accuse Gorsuch when he was actually nominated if she was just going to accuse anyone, in this weirdo view?

Democrats were not going all out to stop Gorsuch, because he was replacing a Republican appointee though they weren't happy about swapping Kennedy for someone who they thought was conservative. They went all out for Thomas who was replacing Marshall. Gorsuch was only going to get lesser opposition, like Alito, Roberts, and before that Souter who ended up being a liberal on the court. If Kavanaugh had been the first appointee he would have had no issues, and gotten the same vote as Gorsuch(still a lot of no votes).

I don't even get the strategy though other than to just throw mud. The democrats knew they were going to get someone they didn't like. It was pretty obvious from the beginning that Ford had little actual data to support her claim so no real reason to bring her testimony forward as an actual crime and it wasn't at all related to any work he did as a judge or anything related to work. So it was just to throw mud around and paint an anti-feminine picture of the GOP for future elections.

Crime? Be serious. A jack-ass drunk high school fake alter-boy bro that assaults another teen is not going down for a crime. The point is to keep such poor character off SCOTUS. SCOTUS should have better.

Statute of limitations was up on this long ago.
It's more about moral terpitude. I served on a professional licensing board and that was one of the necessary traits for licensure, I'd doubly expect the same for SCOTUS appointees.

Do you actually have people come forth and make accusations that haven't gone through court? Would you listen to them? Or would you refer them to the court that makes sense for the criminal offense first. I think as a licensing board you can review past offenses. Not new ones that come up out of nowhere. And wouldn't they have to be related to the license being sought? If you were reviewing an engineer you might listen to some new testimony of an engineering offense not on record, but I can't see someone reviewing a domestic violence accusation that had no proof.

MOST people, appointees or otherwise, DO NOT get random accusations.

Most committees don't pay attention to random accusations. Unless, they are Feinstein, Whitehouse, etc.

Ford's accusations were orchestrated from the very beginning. With the help of her "beach" friend.
Just look at Whitehouse and what he "found."

Are we really going to let these types of accusations with no foundation stand?

You realize you are saying that a woman who was assaulted saying under oath that she was assaulted has "no foundation" for telling what happened to her. So if there isn't video or a witness you are willing to believe, then it didn't happen?

Sure, if it happened to her. There is no evidence that it did--except for what she said. People were interviewed and no one she said was present remembered. Only one person came forward and said she heard about it at --except sch She couool was not in session and she later admitted to lying.
She couldn't remember how she got home. She couldn't remember where it was. The stairs changed from 'short" to "narrow" or vice versa.

NO one corroborated her story. She said she knew nothing about lie detector tests--yet a former boyfriend said she had coached the "beach friend" when she took one for the FBI.
The timeline didn't fit, either.

And, please do not forget--she said there were four then two. And, while a threat of assault is scary--she never said she was raped.

The story was rolled out by Feinstein's staff very slowly. They had the story months before and waited until they were ready to vote to bring it forward. It was orche4strated. Period.

It happened. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story Ford told about Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist. She told her therapist four boys, all in high society. Mark Judge would not be considered high society as a writer I think. Also she had the year wrong. Probably something like this happened when she was older and could drive home, but that wouldn't work as Kavanaugh would not have been in high school then.
I think if Trump had switched the order of his nominations, we would have heard the same accusation by Ford against Gorsuch, who went to the same school and is younger by two years.

This is really deranged. Why didn’t she accuse Gorsuch when he was actually nominated if she was just going to accuse anyone, in this weirdo view?

Democrats were not going all out to stop Gorsuch, because he was replacing a Republican appointee though they weren't happy about swapping Kennedy for someone who they thought was conservative. They went all out for Thomas who was replacing Marshall. Gorsuch was only going to get lesser opposition, like Alito, Roberts, and before that Souter who ended up being a liberal on the court. If Kavanaugh had been the first appointee he would have had no issues, and gotten the same vote as Gorsuch(still a lot of no votes).

I don't even get the strategy though other than to just throw mud. The democrats knew they were going to get someone they didn't like. It was pretty obvious from the beginning that Ford had little actual data to support her claim so no real reason to bring her testimony forward as an actual crime and it wasn't at all related to any work he did as a judge or anything related to work. So it was just to throw mud around and paint an anti-feminine picture of the GOP for future elections.

Crime? Be serious. A jack-ass drunk high school fake alter-boy bro that assaults another teen is not going down for a crime. The point is to keep such poor character off SCOTUS. SCOTUS should have better.

Statute of limitations was up on this long ago.
It's more about moral terpitude. I served on a professional licensing board and that was one of the necessary traits for licensure, I'd doubly expect the same for SCOTUS appointees.

Do you actually have people come forth and make accusations that haven't gone through court? Would you listen to them? Or would you refer them to the court that makes sense for the criminal offense first. I think as a licensing board you can review past offenses. Not new ones that come up out of nowhere. And wouldn't they have to be related to the license being sought? If you were reviewing an engineer you might listen to some new testimony of an engineering offense not on record, but I can't see someone reviewing a domestic violence accusation that had no proof.

MOST people, appointees or otherwise, DO NOT get random accusations.

Most committees don't pay attention to random accusations. Unless, they are Feinstein, Whitehouse, etc.

Ford's accusations were orchestrated from the very beginning. With the help of her "beach" friend.
Just look at Whitehouse and what he "found."

Are we really going to let these types of accusations with no foundation stand?

You realize you are saying that a woman who was assaulted saying under oath that she was assaulted has "no foundation" for telling what happened to her. So if there isn't video or a witness you are willing to believe, then it didn't happen?

Sure, if it happened to her. There is no evidence that it did--except for what she said. People were interviewed and no one she said was present remembered. Only one person came forward and said she heard about it at --except sch She couool was not in session and she later admitted to lying.
She couldn't remember how she got home. She couldn't remember where it was. The stairs changed from 'short" to "narrow" or vice versa.

NO one corroborated her story. She said she knew nothing about lie detector tests--yet a former boyfriend said she had coached the "beach friend" when she took one for the FBI.
The timeline didn't fit, either.

And, please do not forget--she said there were four then two. And, while a threat of assault is scary--she never said she was raped.

The story was rolled out by Feinstein's staff very slowly. They had the story months before and waited until they were ready to vote to bring it forward. It was orche4strated. Period.

It happened. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story Ford told about Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist. She told her therapist four boys, all in high society. Mark Judge would not be considered high society as a writer I think. Also she had the year wrong. Probably something like this happened when she was older and could drive home, but that wouldn't work as Kavanaugh would not have been in high school then.
I think if Trump had switched the order of his nominations, we would have heard the same accusation by Ford against Gorsuch, who went to the same school and is younger by two years.

This is really deranged. Why didn’t she accuse Gorsuch when he was actually nominated if she was just going to accuse anyone, in this weirdo view?

Democrats were not going all out to stop Gorsuch, because he was replacing a Republican appointee though they weren't happy about swapping Kennedy for someone who they thought was conservative. They went all out for Thomas who was replacing Marshall. Gorsuch was only going to get lesser opposition, like Alito, Roberts, and before that Souter who ended up being a liberal on the court. If Kavanaugh had been the first appointee he would have had no issues, and gotten the same vote as Gorsuch(still a lot of no votes).

I don't even get the strategy though other than to just throw mud. The democrats knew they were going to get someone they didn't like. It was pretty obvious from the beginning that Ford had little actual data to support her claim so no real reason to bring her testimony forward as an actual crime and it wasn't at all related to any work he did as a judge or anything related to work. So it was just to throw mud around and paint an anti-feminine picture of the GOP for future elections.

Crime? Be serious. A jack-ass drunk high school fake alter-boy bro that assaults another teen is not going down for a crime. The point is to keep such poor character off SCOTUS. SCOTUS should have better.

Crime. Yes. If McCarrick can be found at fault, so can this guy.

Don't think this was ever about a criminal prosecution. This was to expose his crappy character and judgement. Do you want someone that would do such a thing to have any power over your family? Well neither do the rest of us

I think without even her family and friends or anyone corroborating her story and same for the others, it was more about future elections and painting the GOP as anti-women.

You are very wrong about friends and family not corroborating her story.

Ford's husband corroborated it
Polygraph results from Ford corroborated it
Ford's friend Jim Gensheimer corroborated it
Ford's friend Adela Gildo-Mazzon corroborated it
Ford's friend Keith Koelger corroborated it
Ford's friend Rebecca White corroborated it
And there were therapist's notes from when Ford met with a therapist that corroborated it

Why are you falsely claiming there was no corroboration?

Did you even follow the hearing? Do you actually follow any credible news sources whatsoever?

The therapist's notes did not corroborate her story. The notes refuted her story, yet people acted as if it was evidence in favor. The year was wrong, the number of boys was wrong, the description was wrong.

Also, the person who Ford says was at the party did not corroborate her story, and said she had no recollection of this. She was pressured by other Democrats to support her story.
Ford assumed this liberal Democrat would go to the same lengths as Ford to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court.

Not only that, but the people who pp claims "corroborated" her story only corroborate that SHE told them the story.

Then, there were the changing stories by CBF:

But the problem for Ford is not that she doesn’t remember everything: It is that everything she remembers changes at her convenience.

First, Ford’s testimony that the assault occurred in the summer of 1982, when just 15, conflicted with both her therapist’s notes and the text message Ford sent to the Washington Post. According to reporter Emma Brown, Ford claimed she had been assaulted in the mid-1980s; and the therapist’s notes stated Ford had been the victim of an attempted rape in her late teens. But by that time, Kavanaugh was attending Yale, so Ford’s recasting of the attack to the summer of 1982 is suspect.

Ford’s retelling of the alleged sexual assault also included several conflicting accounts of the number of individuals at the gathering. The therapist’s notes stated that four boys had attempted to rape Ford. (Ford claims her therapist confused the total number of boys at the party with the number of boys who had attacked her.)

Later, in her July letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford again placed the number of individuals at the party at five, stating the gathering included her and four other individuals. But Ford then identified the four by name, and that group included three boys and one girl. And finally, during her Senate testimony, Ford unequivocally stated that “there were four boys I remember specifically being there,” in addition to her friend Leland Keyser.

Another significant change in the scenario came when Ford testified about the location of the party. She had originally told the Washington Post that the attack took place at a house not far from the country club. Yet, when Mitchell revealed a map of the relevant locations and reminded Ford that she had described the attack as having occurred near the country club, Ford backtracked: “I would describe [the house] as it's somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that’s shown in your picture.” Ford added that the country club was a 20-minute drive from her home.

Finally, Ford altered her description of the interior layout of the home and the details of the party and her escape. A “short” stairwell turned into a “narrow” one. The gathering moved from a small family room where the kids drank beer (and which Ford distinguished from the living room through which she fled the house) when she spoke to the Washington Post, to a home described in her actual testimony as having a "small living room/family room-type area.” And in an obvious tell to the change, Ford suggested that she could draw a floor plan of the house.

These four points are significant. First, because Ford had waited 30-plus years to report the purported attack, a therapist’s notes from Ford's sessions with her husband countered claims that Ford had invented the assault to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation. But the notes did not name Ford’s attacker. And the timing of the assault summarized by her therapist, whom Ford saw individually the following year, conflicted with Ford’s current claims against Kavanaugh.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/03/christine-blasey-ford-changing-memories-not-credible-kavanaugh-column/1497661002/

And, then.... there is her best friend who totally disavows her story...

A high-school pal of Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford says in a new book that she’s skeptical of Ford’s claim the Supreme Court justice sexually assaulted her at a party in the 1980s.

“I don’t have any confidence in the story,” Leland Keyser — who Ford has said was at the party where the alleged assault occurred — told two New York Times reporters in their book “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation.”

“Those facts together I don’t recollect, and it just didn’t make any sense,” Keyser insisted of Ford’s account, according to authors Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly.

“It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave and then not figure out how she’s getting home,” Keyser told the authors. “I just really didn’t have confidence in the story.”

At the time of the Senate hearing, Keyser’s lawyer, Howard Walsh, wrote an e-mail to the committee saying his client didn’t known Kavanaugh and didn’t recall being at the party with him.

But in a revised statement soon after, Walsh said Keyser “does not refute Dr. Ford’s account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford’s account.”

Keyser was being pressured by Ford’s allies from high school to do more to help their friend — and things were getting dirty, according to the book.

In a group text, one woman wrote of Keyser, “Maybe one of you guys who are friends with her can have a heart to heart. I don’t care, frankly, how f–ked up her life is. A lot of us have f–ked up lives in one way or another.’’

Another texter, apparently referring to what the book called Keyser’s “addictive tendencies,’’ said, “Perhaps it makes sense to let everyone in the public know what her condition is. Just a thought.’’

The authors say Keyser told them, “I was told behind the scenes that certain things could be spread about me if I didn’t comply.’’

The troubling new details came as controversy continued to swirl over the tome — and an article that the authors wrote over the weekend for the Times drawing from their book.

https://nypost.com/2019/09/17/christine-blasey-fords-friend-now-says-shes-skeptical-of-kavanaugh-accusation/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story Ford told about Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist. She told her therapist four boys, all in high society. Mark Judge would not be considered high society as a writer I think. Also she had the year wrong. Probably something like this happened when she was older and could drive home, but that wouldn't work as Kavanaugh would not have been in high school then.
I think if Trump had switched the order of his nominations, we would have heard the same accusation by Ford against Gorsuch, who went to the same school and is younger by two years.

This is really deranged. Why didn’t she accuse Gorsuch when he was actually nominated if she was just going to accuse anyone, in this weirdo view?

Democrats were not going all out to stop Gorsuch, because he was replacing a Republican appointee though they weren't happy about swapping Kennedy for someone who they thought was conservative. They went all out for Thomas who was replacing Marshall. Gorsuch was only going to get lesser opposition, like Alito, Roberts, and before that Souter who ended up being a liberal on the court. If Kavanaugh had been the first appointee he would have had no issues, and gotten the same vote as Gorsuch(still a lot of no votes).

I don't even get the strategy though other than to just throw mud. The democrats knew they were going to get someone they didn't like. It was pretty obvious from the beginning that Ford had little actual data to support her claim so no real reason to bring her testimony forward as an actual crime and it wasn't at all related to any work he did as a judge or anything related to work. So it was just to throw mud around and paint an anti-feminine picture of the GOP for future elections.

Crime? Be serious. A jack-ass drunk high school fake alter-boy bro that assaults another teen is not going down for a crime. The point is to keep such poor character off SCOTUS. SCOTUS should have better.

Statute of limitations was up on this long ago.
It's more about moral terpitude. I served on a professional licensing board and that was one of the necessary traits for licensure, I'd doubly expect the same for SCOTUS appointees.

Do you actually have people come forth and make accusations that haven't gone through court? Would you listen to them? Or would you refer them to the court that makes sense for the criminal offense first. I think as a licensing board you can review past offenses. Not new ones that come up out of nowhere. And wouldn't they have to be related to the license being sought? If you were reviewing an engineer you might listen to some new testimony of an engineering offense not on record, but I can't see someone reviewing a domestic violence accusation that had no proof.

MOST people, appointees or otherwise, DO NOT get random accusations.

Most committees don't pay attention to random accusations. Unless, they are Feinstein, Whitehouse, etc.

Ford's accusations were orchestrated from the very beginning. With the help of her "beach" friend.
Just look at Whitehouse and what he "found."

Are we really going to let these types of accusations with no foundation stand?

You realize you are saying that a woman who was assaulted saying under oath that she was assaulted has "no foundation" for telling what happened to her. So if there isn't video or a witness you are willing to believe, then it didn't happen?

Sure, if it happened to her. There is no evidence that it did--except for what she said. People were interviewed and no one she said was present remembered. Only one person came forward and said she heard about it at --except sch She couool was not in session and she later admitted to lying.
She couldn't remember how she got home. She couldn't remember where it was. The stairs changed from 'short" to "narrow" or vice versa.

NO one corroborated her story. She said she knew nothing about lie detector tests--yet a former boyfriend said she had coached the "beach friend" when she took one for the FBI.
The timeline didn't fit, either.

And, please do not forget--she said there were four then two. And, while a threat of assault is scary--she never said she was raped.

The story was rolled out by Feinstein's staff very slowly. They had the story months before and waited until they were ready to vote to bring it forward. It was orche4strated. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story Ford told about Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist. She told her therapist four boys, all in high society. Mark Judge would not be considered high society as a writer I think. Also she had the year wrong. Probably something like this happened when she was older and could drive home, but that wouldn't work as Kavanaugh would not have been in high school then.
I think if Trump had switched the order of his nominations, we would have heard the same accusation by Ford against Gorsuch, who went to the same school and is younger by two years.

This is really deranged. Why didn’t she accuse Gorsuch when he was actually nominated if she was just going to accuse anyone, in this weirdo view?

Democrats were not going all out to stop Gorsuch, because he was replacing a Republican appointee though they weren't happy about swapping Kennedy for someone who they thought was conservative. They went all out for Thomas who was replacing Marshall. Gorsuch was only going to get lesser opposition, like Alito, Roberts, and before that Souter who ended up being a liberal on the court. If Kavanaugh had been the first appointee he would have had no issues, and gotten the same vote as Gorsuch(still a lot of no votes).

I don't even get the strategy though other than to just throw mud. The democrats knew they were going to get someone they didn't like. It was pretty obvious from the beginning that Ford had little actual data to support her claim so no real reason to bring her testimony forward as an actual crime and it wasn't at all related to any work he did as a judge or anything related to work. So it was just to throw mud around and paint an anti-feminine picture of the GOP for future elections.

Crime? Be serious. A jack-ass drunk high school fake alter-boy bro that assaults another teen is not going down for a crime. The point is to keep such poor character off SCOTUS. SCOTUS should have better.

Statute of limitations was up on this long ago.
It's more about moral terpitude. I served on a professional licensing board and that was one of the necessary traits for licensure, I'd doubly expect the same for SCOTUS appointees.

Do you actually have people come forth and make accusations that haven't gone through court? Would you listen to them? Or would you refer them to the court that makes sense for the criminal offense first. I think as a licensing board you can review past offenses. Not new ones that come up out of nowhere. And wouldn't they have to be related to the license being sought? If you were reviewing an engineer you might listen to some new testimony of an engineering offense not on record, but I can't see someone reviewing a domestic violence accusation that had no proof.

MOST people, appointees or otherwise, DO NOT get random accusations.

Most committees don't pay attention to random accusations. Unless, they are Feinstein, Whitehouse, etc.

Ford's accusations were orchestrated from the very beginning. With the help of her "beach" friend.
Just look at Whitehouse and what he "found."

Are we really going to let these types of accusations with no foundation stand?

You realize you are saying that a woman who was assaulted saying under oath that she was assaulted has "no foundation" for telling what happened to her. So if there isn't video or a witness you are willing to believe, then it didn't happen?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story Ford told about Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist. She told her therapist four boys, all in high society. Mark Judge would not be considered high society as a writer I think. Also she had the year wrong. Probably something like this happened when she was older and could drive home, but that wouldn't work as Kavanaugh would not have been in high school then.
I think if Trump had switched the order of his nominations, we would have heard the same accusation by Ford against Gorsuch, who went to the same school and is younger by two years.

This is really deranged. Why didn’t she accuse Gorsuch when he was actually nominated if she was just going to accuse anyone, in this weirdo view?

Democrats were not going all out to stop Gorsuch, because he was replacing a Republican appointee though they weren't happy about swapping Kennedy for someone who they thought was conservative. They went all out for Thomas who was replacing Marshall. Gorsuch was only going to get lesser opposition, like Alito, Roberts, and before that Souter who ended up being a liberal on the court. If Kavanaugh had been the first appointee he would have had no issues, and gotten the same vote as Gorsuch(still a lot of no votes).

I don't even get the strategy though other than to just throw mud. The democrats knew they were going to get someone they didn't like. It was pretty obvious from the beginning that Ford had little actual data to support her claim so no real reason to bring her testimony forward as an actual crime and it wasn't at all related to any work he did as a judge or anything related to work. So it was just to throw mud around and paint an anti-feminine picture of the GOP for future elections.

Crime? Be serious. A jack-ass drunk high school fake alter-boy bro that assaults another teen is not going down for a crime. The point is to keep such poor character off SCOTUS. SCOTUS should have better.

Statute of limitations was up on this long ago.
It's more about moral terpitude. I served on a professional licensing board and that was one of the necessary traits for licensure, I'd doubly expect the same for SCOTUS appointees.

Do you actually have people come forth and make accusations that haven't gone through court? Would you listen to them? Or would you refer them to the court that makes sense for the criminal offense first. I think as a licensing board you can review past offenses. Not new ones that come up out of nowhere. And wouldn't they have to be related to the license being sought? If you were reviewing an engineer you might listen to some new testimony of an engineering offense not on record, but I can't see someone reviewing a domestic violence accusation that had no proof.

MOST people, appointees or otherwise, DO NOT get random accusations.

Most committees don't pay attention to random accusations. Unless, they are Feinstein, Whitehouse, etc.

Ford's accusations were orchestrated from the very beginning. With the help of her "beach" friend.
Just look at Whitehouse and what he "found."

Are we really going to let these types of accusations with no foundation stand?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her friends were not there when it happened. She left and didn’t tell anyone. Not wanting to talk about it is not proof that it didn’t happen. Didn’t Judge write a whole bro-brag book about he and his friend “Bart” terrorizing the Country Club girls of MoCo?

I'll believe her best friend who CBF claimed was there and who says that CBF is FOS.
She is much more credible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uggggg. How are we stuck with this guy that would abuse a teen girl on SCOTUS?

We aren't.
There was no abuse of any girl or woman by any member of SCOTUS.

Anonymous wrote:Her friends were not there when it happened. She left and didn’t tell anyone. Not wanting to talk about it is not proof that it didn’t happen. Didn’t Judge write a whole bro-brag book about he and his friend “Bart” terrorizing the Country Club girls of MoCo?

Anonymous wrote:Uggggg. How are we stuck with this guy that would abuse a teen girl on SCOTUS?