Here is a question about Ford that I have seen no one talk about

Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Women dont like other women that lie about their men.

 

Personally I prefer chucking him in a lake and if he sinks and drowns he's innocent.

 

I think there's an order of magnitude difference between an investigation and that my friend.

All these questions you folks raise CAN be answered

 

Just so long as they're answered after the midterms.

 

A lot of teens go to parties you know.

 

I think they should open an FBI investigation based on her report with the Montgomery County Sheriffs Department 35 years ago. They can use all of the evidence and witnesses from that file. Otherwise, they have nothing to investigate.

She can't remember where the party was.
She can't remember who's house the party was at.
She can't remember the date or even what year it was for sure.
She attended several of these parties and "knew" what was going on at these parties.
She can't produce a single friend who even knew about the "incident".
She didn't go to the police 35 years ago. Any evidence or witness testimony is forever lost.(if it ever existed)


We have he said/she said and she has NO corroboration from witnesses or physical evidence.

 

Only in court are lie dedectors test results inadmisable.

This isn't a criminal case. The statue of limitations is well passed. It's full admissable when it comes to evidence as part of the committee hearings.

Kavanuagh refused to take the test, and he has gone out of his way to prevent any sort of official investigation being started. That's seems suspicious for someone who claims they did nothing wrong. Only criminals have anything to fear from investigations.

 

Prove it.

 

I look forward to reminding you of this and your admission that your prediction was wrong.

 

That proved that she believes what she said. It doesn't prove that it was correct. That is the problem with the technology. I believe both parties from yesterday. I believe Ford was assaulted and that Kavanaugh was not the one who assaulted her.

 

Isn't this standard language in the DNC national committee playbook? Wasn't this the method folks like Harvey, Roman, and so many other democrats have used, over the years? So, hey, take a breath, ask your own party folks what is cool in your tent...

 

They are going down. We are NOT protecting any predators. YOU ARE.

 

How dare you give away the DNC playbook methods.... someone might catch on...

 

Keith Ellison? Harvey Weinstein? Anthony Weiner? I mean, there's actually a very long list. Matt Lauer? Charlie Rose? Can you help us understand how you aren't protecting predators? I mean, we have video of the entire Academy on TV standing for child rapist Roman Polanski.... Drugged, her, raped her... This seems to be your hey, look in the mirror moment...

 

So you admit, rich and powerful men have been sticking it to women?

 

Years and years of email evidence to the contrary. You have no hope on this one. Too much evidence of this.

 

Democrats, all... Please feel free to own them, and their behavior .... As far as Ellison is concerned, why hasn't his day in the committee been demanded by the left?

 

We ARE owning it. And that is the issue. YOU, and yours, are not. And, they are screaming at us all for trying.

 

You are? Really? Or should we more realistically believe that only when it becomes public, will you own it? I don't think democrats own any such thing. We have credible evidence that mr Menendez was running underage girls for guests in the DR. We have credible evidence that mr Ellison is a serial abuser. And publicly, your party is still not owning this. Still unwilling to hold these folks to task. Why? Because they need these votes. Simple as that.

 

Do you have to take personal responsibility for making stuff up? Did you see him drunk? Well did you? No you didn't, so you make shitt up to make a point that everyone sees you are lying about.

 

If you get drunk and play on the freeway at night, and get hit by a car, who's fault is it? If you get drunk and drive and kill someone with a car, who's fault is it. I taught my daughters that don't put yourself in such a situation, pick your friends wisely, and you will not likely wake up raped. NO, nobody should be raped, but you get drunk and play on a freeway, you might have really bad things happen to you.

 

How do you know this to be true? I certainly don't know one way or another. Washington is a sespool of liars, cheats and cons, so are colleges. But I never assume anything to be true or false without significant evidence.

This whole think however, with Ford, is a scam by the democratic party to stop the court from going right wing. We all KNOW that.

 

You have role reversal it was Kavanaugh who was falling down drunk.Where was his mother the Judge???Maybe that's who he took his example from??The legal drinking age in Maryland as of July 1,1982 when it was raised from 18 to age 21.Kavanaugh was NEVER able to legally drink whilein high school,he turned 18 on February 12,1983!!!

 

We have no physical evidence that he was ever falling down drunk. Again, you apparently have no idea what "due process" is. At least watch judge judy and you might pick up a few pointers. Apparently I was able to pass the Ohio Bar exam 3 years ago and I never had any law school in the formal way. You only needed 60 to pass (low bar) and I got a nice big fat 80. Go take it sometime and see how you do!

 

Your analogy just doesn't work but when one is sooooooo desperate to make rape ALL the FAULT of the woman one tends to go off the rails of common sense.


Yes, she wouldn't have been raped if she had picked her friends more wisely, YA KNOW ... had them thoroughly investigated by a private investigator, saw their mental health records, interviewed their family and friends ..

………………..like we all do when meeting potential friends, going to school, going to work and going to parties...???????????????????????


Will you blame your daughters if they get raped?



You say , don't put yourself in that situation...well, women are raped in EVERY SITUATION....should they be locked up for "their own safety"?