BREAKING: Second accuser brings new allegation of sexual misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh

A week, maybe two. Isn't that how long it took on Anita Hill? The longer Trump delays, the better for the Democrats.

 

That was painful to read....Google has a feature called "spellcheck".... Giver 'er a go....

 

ms gwammah

 

Well, then it conforms to at least the very least of what the demo's want to happen...Extend it out to make sure that if Kavanaugh is confirmed he won't be able to sit in the upcoming session....But, the longer Trump delays? WTF..? Trump is under no obligation to do anything here....I'd say the longer this takes, and the more unhinged that the anti Trumpers, and demo's look, the worse it will be on them....Already a cornucopia of material for ads given by them....

 

I don't speak gibberish.

 

u so smart

 

Okay. If you so. And no, I don’t know who hates you. How would I know that? Me being neutral or unbiased doesn’t give me any special abilities into other forum members minds. What?

Anyway... I just think you’re getting a bit too emotionally involved here maybe, and just need to step back a few minutes. Take a walk, do something else, etc.... There is more to life than this web site. It’s fine that you disagree with those that think Ford is a conspiring nutjob (ford the record, I am not one of them), but the way you’re doing it is a bit much. You made a whole post about how you don’t like other forum members coming after you... and here you are doing what you claim you don’t like. It’s just a bit disheartening seeing you do this. You’re better than this. I really do think that. I’d like to think we all are.

 

You want to subpoena all their emails and then those of Feinstein and the Democrat Congresswoman? How about she be asked at the hearing who she spoke with about this after the announcement about Kavanaugh? We could get her text messages too and see where they lead. She could be asked if any promises were made as to she would not have to testify and if any offers of any rewards for making her statement.

 

No it's factual.

 

Why do you hate this man so much?

 

So what is your point? The penalties are as severe and the offense just as serious in both. And even before the legal proceedings of the Congress hearsay should carry no weight. You have to have the person being quote THERE to affirm that is what they said.

Tell me what testimony do you expect Ford to give that will prove her story? And I wish Grassley to instruct the Senators and her attorney that no questions as to how bad she claims has been her life because of what she claims happens will be allowed as they have no bearing on the core issue, DID he do it. Her testifying how bad her life has been BECAUSE of her accusation is based on unproven facts, that he did it. This is not someone who has been convicted and this is the penalty stage so such testimony has merit. Of course he can't do that and imagine that will be the bulk of the questions asked by the Democrats especially the women Democrats who will just assume her story is true now go for the heartstrings.

 

It's also the JUDICIAL COMMITTEE that oversees FEDERAL COURTS and suddenly Dems have gone stupid on the presumption of innocence, the need to deal in sworn corroborated facts and the rule of law? How convenient that they time this so well to coincide to when they have completely lost their minds.

Perjury hedge? Sure starting to look that way with Kavanaugh's two accusers

Amazing how many legal steps Judge Kavanaugh's accusers have taken to insulate themselves from any potential charge of perjury.

It's 47 hour drive without stops and she says she can't fly. Has she even left Palo Alto yet?

Republicans have a solid litigator experience in prosecuting sex offenders, and so very adept at handling sexual assault victims as witnesses. She'll get to the bottom of it, if Ford shows, but, unless Ford is already in DC or well underway, I wouldn't expect her to show up.

 

[Dup]

 

So then why are we holding this hearing. We don't need to hear from her we have her written statement. They need to vote. Then the Democrats who voted against him can explain why would the vote against someone because that person have been charged with something for which there is no evidence it occurred and in fact evidence it did not.

 

Yes it is, your trying to say what is discussed in the article is what happened and proves it happened is pure conjecture and supposition. You are free to state it as an opinion, but don't pretend it proves anything or is evidence of anything.

 

That's not what we're talking about. I came in when you and Max were discussing whether traumatic memories differ from regular memories? They do. It would not be unusual for the person stressed to remember an event, and another person who was there, but not stressed, not to remember the event. If you follow our discussion, yours and mine, back you'll see where I was coming from.

 

Or it could be she is a nut job who wants to be in the news. I find it strange that her best friend, a friend who says we shared every thought and told each other everything knew nothing about it. If this happened the way she told it, she would have numerous injuries. She also said she had medical treatment. I don't know about then, but now if a young woman came in for treatment for this type of injuries the doctor's office is required to notify the police. That didn't happen and she also has not produced any medical report. She also claims her parents didn't know. If my daughter came home with injuries and torn clothing, I think I would know. Her story does not match what she told her psychiatrist. To many holes for anyone with a clear mind to buy.

In short, all the people she claims were there say it didn't happen. She has no physical evidence that it happened. She has multiple versions of what happened. This is nothing but a smear job orchestrated by a bunch of slime balls.

 

So, I've been busy all day.

Any evidence yet?

 

A smart, educated, successful woman in her late 40's all of a sudden goes insane and wants to be famous? Cmon, dude, how realistic is that, really?

Not yet, she hasn't. Doesn't mean a medical report does not exist. And, if I were advising her, I'd tell her to hold that report close until it's absolutely required to prove her case.

This is not unusual in victims of trauma See: Thousands of middle-aged men coming forward about the abuse they suffered by the Catholic Church in countries across the globe.

No one has claimed it didn't happen, only that they were unaware that it did.

 

She shows all the signs of having been treated with regression hypno-therapy by a quack. The therapy dredged up false memories which she BELIEVES. Most likely the reason that she focused on Kavenaugh as her phantom molester is because she is also a radical feminist and currently radical feminists are going ape crap crazy over him.

 

Boy, the internet sure brings out the armchair psychologist wannabes....

 

Um . . . I am quoting actual experts. You do know what google and bing are used for, yes?

 

Well what does it say about this event you sudden have a memory of is said to be untrue by the persons you claim already knew about it and can prove your memory is true and not false? And there is nothing usual about what you are claiming about a traumatic event, those witnessing it would remember it it would be stressful for them all. I've never heard such an absurd proposition that BECAUSE the claimed witnesses claim they never witnessed any such event proves it happened and that because the person making the accusation did not remember it for decades and then under some type of mental coaching remember it proves it to be true.

But the fact remains trying to inject that is pure conjecture and supposition.

 

As either you or I know that.

 

So if you ever want to get someone in jail claim they did something then get some people to say they never witnessed it and that proves the person did it.