Key Republican senators condemn Trump's mockery of Ford

derp

 

Telling The Truth isn't Allowed In America!

Rachel Mitchell expertly eviscerates the case against Kavanaugh.

Ford has “not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened” or her age when it happened, and how “her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.” For example, Ford listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to a Post reporter, but “she did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s.”

Ford has “no memory of key details of the night in question — details that could help corroborate her account." Ford does not remember who invited her to the gathering, how she heard about it, how she got there, or where that house was located with any specificity. “Most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house. Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions. Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy.” Furthermore, Ford “testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.” This seems highly unlikely.

Ford’s inconsistencies are not limited to events three decades ago. For example, Ford delayed the hearing because she said her symptoms prevented her from flying from California to Washington, but then acknowledged under questioning that she flies to the East Coast “at least once a year to visit her family,” and has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia and Costa Rica for hobbies and vacations.

Moreover, Ford also testified that she was not “clear” that Grassley (R-Iowa) had offered to send committee investigators to interview her in California. Either this statement under oath was untrue or her attorneys failed to share Grassley’s offer with her — which is a serious violation of the American Bar Association’s rules of professional conduct.​

Democrats should have never thrown her under the national spotlight as their star witness when clearly she was in no shape to do so. But Dems don't care what they do to women, they only want what they want and the hell with who they crush in the pursuit of it.

 

Anything to obstruct. If they had just picked less radical justices during the last term they wouldn't have had to monkey with the rules.

 

The Calendar could have been from the start a calculated effort to sainthood, but that doesn't change anything with regard to innocent until proven guilty.

When the Captain's signature was forged and I was denied a request for Captain's Mast the Legal department, when they told me to walk the request chit up the chain of command, also told me to get a notebook and write down every order. Just because I had the notebook doesn't make it truthful, but suspicions a saint is too good to be true also applies to the "survivor"; without more proof the judge is a survivor too, and by democratic logic of bullies yelling "we believe survivors," the judge must be believed. The burden of proof should not be on the accused, otherwise you become Genghis Khan...

 

Yeah, but then again I'm a rude, crude, and socially unattractive guy too.

 

The idea that the lady protests too much does not impinge on the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

There were people right here on this forum that on the first day that Ford's name was announced declared here called her a a "liar and a slut". So she was declared a liar before she was even allowed to give her story. That is the mirror image of innocent until proven guilty. What Ford was told is you are a liar until you proove yourself not to be.

Preconceived notion.

 

Just like the FBI investigation the left wanted so badly, the mockery they pray they might politicize, will come. ::

 

The preconceived notion is that Madame Defarge’s innocence is taken as equal to that of the accused, or in this case she is “credible” out of the gate, which flies in the face of the whole purpose of innocence until proven guilty.

Innocence until proven guilty cannot be a burden placed more heavily on the accused, we have this concept for a reason, because any tyranny would love the accuser (citizen Defarge) to be elevated to innocent until proven guilty so that the State may eliminate undesirables with no evidence other than the innocence of the accuser. If the accuser is innocent until proven guilty, Defarge is not a liar, there is no need for evidence; the judge sends Charles Darnay to the guillotine, all based upon biases of politics.

It is a simple fact, for innocence until proven guilty to work in preventing Charles Darnay’s head from falling into a Basket of Deplorables, the accuser cannot be assumed to be as innocent as the accused. I must assume the accuser is lying until there is evidence, there must be evidence that transcends the biases of politics.