Kavanaugh controversy is PAYBACK

No. She said there were 4 boys in the room and now changed it to 2. The bullshit is again solely on you. I just provided you a link and unfortunately for you I cut your only argument (right wing extremist fake news) out from under you. Get serious kid.

 

It seemed the implication of your position.

You seemed perfectly sanguine using him as a witness when it helped you. Now that it doesn't you want to quibble. Shocking.

I believe both he and kavanaugh have offered to testify. So what exactly do you think that is, a bluff? As it stood when I went to lunch Mrs Ford had yet to agree to same. Has that changed in the last few hours?

How? I've explained already: She told her therapist a different tale.

Stop the posturing? I was responding to your accusation that I was being fed my lines (that's what spinning this for you would be in that context) and doing so is posturing? Ok Mr. Kafka, take a breath ffs.

You've made the accusation, the burden to prove the accusation is on you. If you've got nothing and I've got nothing, then I win. We don't have the sort of system where accusations are presumed.

Being able to pin down a general time frame of the alleged assault would be rather important to proving said assault took place and who the perp was. It would be essential actually. Without it you can't prove the underlying offense BARD.

She told HER therapist about it in 2012 when Kavanaugh was on Romney's announced short list actually. So you're wrong there about "what she's got" plus the therapist's notes don't match her tale.

She wants to try it in the court of public opinion, she needs to show her evidence. If all she's got is testimony, she needs to testify and needs to reveal the when, the where, and the who. Until she can do that she has nothing.

As to my license: Yeah sparky State of Texas and I'm admitted to practise in the Southern District of Texas.

My conditions have to be met if you want me to find her at all credible, yes. I'm not alone in holding this opinion.

Well that's nice bud, too bad you're not on the State Bar or that opinion of yours might mean something. This isn't a trial. Its never going to GO to trial because the statute of limitations has run. She went to the press. She wanted to try this in the court of public opinion. Asking for her evidence is reasonable. Rebuffing her when she refuses to provide any? That's reasonable as well.

This would be a personal grudge we have actual evidence for. Unlike her own claim which she apparently never told ANYONE about for 40 years. Not even a high school friend. She can't find ONE PERSON from that time to say "yeah she said something had happened to her at a party one time but didn't want to talk about it. " even.

Buddy you start paying my rate and I'll start churching up my writing here all you'd like. You got paypal or venmo? How many hours you want to pay for up front?


I judge her credibility as lacking since she comes to the table with no evidence and can't even give a year when it happened, yes.
Just as you assume Kavanaugh is guilty and must prove he is not, as evidenced above where you set them on equal footing proof-wise and demand he account for himself. The difference being my opinion runs the way our law would have it run: That the person accused is innocent until the accuser can provide some actual proof of the wrongdoing.

 

yes, the judges will increase in number by two when dems take back control and they will seat them with the 50 vote rule Republicans created, republicans will regret changing it to 50 votes as they will be powerless to stop it - just like dems have been powerless to stop republicans because of their rule change - you can't change the courts to far right and not expect the left to do the same in return with that same rules

 

You realize she changed her story...right?

 

they won in 2012, and after Trump I hope the left learned their lesson about not getting out and voting

the roy moore election gives me hope, that is what happens when you get out and vote.... people like Trump and Roy Moore do not win elections

 

Harry Reid made the change to 50 votes.

 

not for supreme court justices, but I think you know that....

republicans changed the rules to 50 for supreme court justices all on their own

wonder where so many on the right get these dishonest "alternative facts"?

 

It's a slippery slope, and Harry led the first charge down this path.

 

so the other boy that was in the room doesn't want to testify under oath now?

publicly defends him, but not under oath?

 

I disagree with the changes both parties made, but like I told dems when they did it then, republubs will use it later and they did

now repubs made a new change and I say to them, dems will use that change when they gain power too... and they will

 

Get this through your head. Harry Reid put Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the bench. Done.

 

yeah and Trump is a God and created the universe and all that's in it, just sayin... just cause one can say it, doesn't make it true

 

So... you support pettiness and childish behavior?

 

No she didn't. If she did, you could prove it.

 

I only gave the facts. The spin is yours.

Great.

Apparently she has been willing all along and has been in touch with the FBI about it. The word is that she is preparing.

I've presented the facts as I understand them with a logical look at it.

What's a BARD? The details you're demanding will come out in a sworn testimony, or they won't. We'll have to wait and see.

I'm willing to wait for a hearing. Are you?

Right. All of Fox "News" holds the same opinions. So yeah, you've got company. So do I.

I'm willing to wait for a hearing. Are you?

How do you know that?

I write in complete sentences with proper punctuation in order to be clear and correctly understood. You want to be paid for it??? LOL!!!!!

Cool! I'm willing to wait for a hearing. Are you?

 

No, I don't. Gots a linky?

 

I just did. Is your claim that WaPo is a right wing extremist group then?

 

Except in this case it is true. Harry Reid is the one who ****ed you Dems over. Hilarious.

 

They made up a new rule called the Biden rule! Lol moron

 

Kavanaugh will be promptly confirmed.

To do this they need to win all their strongly dem and likely dem seats and 7 out of 9 of the toss ups. Not very likely.

In any case, there is no conceivable chance of a nominee not being confirmed.

 

From your WaPo link: "Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room. "

Try again.

 

Which is what she said AFTER she told her therapist there were 4 boys in the room. But is now trying to act like that was just an error by the therapist. Riiggghhhhtttt...

 

How do you know it wasn't an error in understanding or transcription by the therapist? It's obvious that the stand you are taking is most in your biased interest, but the fact is you don't know, but your tenacity for your position in spite of facts and logic says it all.

 

if you want to ignore the facts that it was republicans that changed the votes to 50 on SC picks, have at it

some think Trump's crowd size was the biggest ever too - lol

 

Here's a fact for you, this is going to put the icing on the cake to finish dems in Nov. after losing elections SINCE 2010.

The fact I refer to, is losing elections, and that dems haven't changed and will continue losing elections because the PEOPLE are sick and tired of this CRAP.

How many elections do dems have to lose SINCE 2010 before it finally dawns on them that what they are doing is WHY they keep losing elections?

Steve