Reply With Quote
You can't be serious. Are you seriously claiming there are no inconsistencies from Ford's testimony? Are you seriously claiming Ford has not changed her story multiple times?
CALLED IT
You can't be serious. Are you seriously claiming there are no inconsistencies from Ford's testimony? Are you seriously claiming Ford has not changed her story multiple times?
Kellyanne Conway is a stupid who is lying about her sexual abuse victimhood.
He'll get them easy honestly.
If Mitch already had the votes Graham wouldn't be stalling for more time.
Lol “how’d he mock her”. Just denying what is clearly visible in the video. Y’all have learned well from trumpy
I think Susan, Murkowski and Flake will vote no. Honestly I think Joe manchin and the other democrat chick will vote yes because they're deadly afraid of the trumpies.
are they all 'slob alts?
Kind of agree it isn't necessary. She was interviewed by a prosecutor. What more can she answer the FBI? I would think the FBI would spend it's time probing the Kavanaugh calendar, which is the only real evidence in the whole case to see if there is anything there that would substantiate Ford's story.
Not surprised Ford's attorneys are not releasing the other information. When people hide do ents like that, it usually means they are damaging to the story. I don't think you can assume they disprove her story, but I bet they provide further contradictions to what she has said (and therapist notes may have some embarrassing details about her marriage or other problems that she prefers to keep private) and I'm sure the polygraph that they have played up would show itself to be less telling than what they have made it out to be.
this is how investigations are done
the pos grassley is a senile corrupt traitor and his sham investigation / hearing is a disgrace.
Ford and kavanaugh both should be interviewed after the fbi has a firm grasp of the evidence/lack of evidence
both their testimonies need to be challenged to uncover possible inconsistencies or to reconfirm facts, poke holes in their responses, etc
No way to know as of yet, but I bet Collins and Murkowski both vote yes. I think Joe Manchin votes yes. And I think Flake votes yes. I think Flake would like to vote "no" to give Trump the middle finger, but he has too many GOP contacts, cons uents, and colleagues that will hound him to no end if he fails to stack the court with a conservative judge given the opportunity. Flake is no Democrat, he's just not a Trump Republican.
The FBI people are much better interrogators than senile, biased s on the Sen Jud Cte
eg, if the two's public statements match their private statements, very good chance of being true, honest. Else, suspect.
I bet K, swamp monster par excellence, can't repeat to FBI the he said in Congress, because he's stressed out from his lying and being accused. He's too ing stupid to be a good liar. And this flaming asshole, wimpy, emotionally fragile prick is a Repug Federal judge? holy
???? A prosecutor that specializes in sexual assault cases, including ones that have occurred years in the past, interviewed Ford. No reason to do it again unless something turns up that requires clarification. As for Kavanaugh, he was cross examined by several Democrats that were federal prosecutors. No reason to question him again unless something new turns up. I'm sure the FBI looked at the testimony and did some rounds trying to check what each side said. If nothing new turns up, then why go talk to Kavanaugh or Ford again. It's not like either is going to change their story.
Besides, you are missing the playbook. The Dems have shifted from wanting the FBI report to investigate the Ford allegations to wanting the FBI to investigate how much beer Kavanaugh drank in college and high school.
They are stalling now.
he's getting confirmed... shouldn't, of course, but will...
"A prosecutor that specializes in sexual assault cases"
she had 15 minutes, and then she was cut off, and decided no CRIMINAL case.
Does she spend 15 minutes ONE TIME on all her cases over the past 25 years?
And she asked some really stupid questions, wasted her limited time.
and of course she came up with the decision the Repugs hired her for. As believable as scientists paid by monsanto/bayer/syngenta saying glyphosate, Paraquat, atrazine, Chlorpyrifos are safe
I don't know the total time that she took because it was in 5 minute increments. The Dems also questioned her with layups to let her tell her story. End of the day, her attorney doesn't want to make any of the do ents available to the committee. They have no new information. And yes, some interviews take 15 minutes when the accuser has no verifiable facts to allow the prosecutor to investigate further. If you can't name a date, a time, a place, how you got there, and where you went after, there isn't much to investigate. And the FBI isn't going to get answers that others tried to get.
Sure Lucille.
Brett Kavanaugh’s past ruling on statements of innocence could lead to him being proven guilty: legal expert
Brett Kavanaugh has a complicated history that contradicts his own predicament as he defends his nomination. One instance, however, has nothing to do with drinking or sexual assault, but about using evidence in trials.
Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega brought up “exculpatory statements,” which is a statement that is favorable to a defendant in a criminal trial. It is generally seen as something that could exonerate someone of guilt.
“BK’s lies about binge drinking are false exculpatory statements designed to undermine Ford’s 100% certain I.D. of him as her attacker. In 2013, Kavanaugh found a detainee’s false exculpatory statements to be strong evidence of guilt,” she tweeted Wednesday.
“To be clear, I question the ultimate holding in that case, Ali v. Obama, but
there is no question about the strength of the longstanding principle that
false exculpatory statements may be considered evidence of guilt,”
she noted.
Her link was to a case before Kavanaugh’s court about a Guantanamo Bay detainee named Abdul Razak Ali, who sued Barack Obama’s administration. In that case, Kavanaugh decided that the false statements made to make the defendant look good or innocent were a sign of guilt.
If Kavanaugh were to follow his own ruling, any false statement he made to prove his innocence could do the exact opposite.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/bre...e+Raw+Story%29
B O O M !
650? Wow:
Won't matter though
what evidence do you have that, purged by Trash to save his own and slander the entire FBI in his obstruction and cover up, these two let their personal politics influence their professional behavior?Sure Lucille.
What about all the FBI/CIA/NSA people that candidate Trash slandered as Nazis?
law professors = full of themselves dumbphucks.650? Wow:
Won't matter though
It's already been gone over on the FBI thread booty.
Thays just dumb. ZERO chance they will vote to confirm unless Republicans already have 51.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions