I HAD AN AFFAIR WITH BRETT KAVANAUGH

An extinct breed.

 

Then you are wrong, and you will abide by what the investigators reveal.

 

The investigators can't reveal anything. They weren't there. The accusers and their witnesses revealed exactly the facts I've just posted and they're the ones you choose to ignore.

 

I thought this must be fake news but its really happening

Unbelievable

 

I can finally reveal that it was KAVANAUGH on the grassy knoll!

 

It is hard to imagine that P. M. Justin Trudeau would
go so radical..... but he has!


https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...-giant-when-he-banned-summer-job-grants-to-pr

Justin Trudeau woke a sleeping giant when he banned summer job grants to pro-life employers


https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/summer-jobs-program-1.4491602

Trudeau is asking religious Canadians to betray their conscience for federal funding

 

i heard he just boiled and ate a live puppy after stealing it from a gay black homeles veteran.

 

I can't believe that you and countless others in the Republican Party are insensitive enough to address this situation with levity. Rape is an all too common yet all too infrequently reported problem that throughout history has been considered with legal impunity, often leaving the stigma of impurity upon the victims while exonerating the perpetrators, who often become repeat offenders.

Even the president and most Republicans embrace the theory that Ford really was attacked, but Kavanaugh was the victim of mistaken identity. . . . Ford meets the criteria expected in a credible witness, being a university professor in good standing who stands to lose a great deal more than gain by her testimony. She still is afraid to go back to her home because of threats she continues to receive.

Two of my granddaughters have been the victims of rape by strangers; one was reported to us after a pregnancy could no longer be concealed, and the other we did not become aware of until years afterwards. A third granddaughter just now admitted during the Kavanaugh hearings that she had been the target of an ATTEMPTED rape at college a few years ago.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that only 26% of sexual assaults are reported. . . . BTW, your thread meets the criteria for being considered sexual harassment in the United States.

These hearings were not a court of law. ALL job applicants face the possibility that bad references can ruin their chances of employment; hiring a person ALWAYS involves a calculated risk, and even unproven allegations are reasons to seriously consider rejection.

 

My impression is that Ms. Ford did a terrible disservice to all genuine victims of sexual assault by attempting to
use whatever may have happened to her......
to lash out at somebody who members of the Democratic Party were desperate to stop at virtually any cost........

It may come out that the guilt of Feinstein and / or her assistants was greater though.....
because Ms. Ford clearly asked for anonymity..... and was given less than accurate advice by
the lawyers that Feinstein sent to interview her.......

 

I suspect many canadian voters are as batshit crazy as he is

 

You are insinuating that Ford is not a GENUINE victim. Although attempted rape may not be as traumatic an experience as the actual culmination of that act, it is DEFINITELY something that SHOULD disqualify an applicant for a seat on the bench of the Supreme Court. Whistleblowers put themselves at risk, and scenarios introduced by conservatives whereby Ford could enrich herself by making these allegations, whether true or false, are not even remotely plausible, given the inevitable repercussions she would undoubtedly face from far right radical extremists.

Whether Feinstein handled the matter appropriately is irrelevant to the issues. Ford is the individual we are focusing on now, and once again a victim attempting to accomplish a public service faces recrimination. I fear that empathy become an obsolete value in our jaded society.

It is unfortunate that the event could not be positively affirmed or disproven, but rape and other serious crimes typically don't have eyewitnesses other than accomplices. Kavanaugh is the job applicant; it is HIS responsibility to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that he is qualified for the job, WITH NO RESERVATIONS.

Think about it: Is it reasonable to assume that a belligerent sober person would be a belligerent drunk???

 

Ford presented no credible evidence to back up her story

Kavanaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence and you are denying him that basic right

 

Dr, Ford has been treated very fairly by the Republicans but less so, certainly, by the Democrats.

She's had ample time, 36 years in fact, to get her story straight but she still can't do it. We can give her some benefit of the doubt but it seems this woman is clearly nothing more than a liar and a Leftist stooge. She had her 15 minutes, she's made a lot of money, and now she should return the obscurity she rightly deserves.

 

You are certainly an exceptionally good writer.......
the question has crossed my mind that you might even be one of those exceptionally intelligent people who.........

.... I will let you fill in the blanks there.......

.... but anyway... . Assuming that you actually believe what you are writing about Ms. Ford.......
For one thing..... it certainly is possible that she may have gone through actual sexual abuse but........
the fact that the witnesses she called did not back up her claims regarding the possible attacker .... may imply that she
could be imagining a high profile possible attacker........
as opposed to her possible attacker being non-famous...........
which would make her possible real trauma to be less valuable to USA politics than she might have wished to imagine?!

 

Exactly......... Ms. Ford put herself forward as a possible Saviour for the USA Democratic Party......
and by implication...... perhaps in her mind at least...... of the whole world!

 

I wonder how many parties Ford attended with the same crowd of drunks afer her alledly life alter experience?

Did she continue to get drunk with the boys?

 

That is the exact question that Democrats should ask if they are actually interested in TRUTH......
more so than the political destruction of somebody who they regard as their opponent?

 

This is kind of cool isn't it?

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=310120743113975

 

Pelosi of course is trying to blame conservatives for that

but I see her party as the primary perps of it

 

It seems that you are reluctant to let go of your underlying assumption that Ford is lying or modifying her story for political purposes. . . . The problem with this is that those employing unethical tactics are unwilling to make the inevitable sacrifices that their morally driven and patriotic counterparts are willing to make.

If you are correct in your assumption, then Kavanaugh has indeed suffered undeserved humiliation, and I would certainly condemn Ford for maligning him and damaging his reputation, but I tend to believe that Ford has MUCH more to lose than to gain, whether allegations are true or false. . . . Does it stand to reason that Kavanaugh would admit his guilt, or that ACTUAL witnesses, who could also be considered accomplices, would validate her claim???

The preponderance of POSSIBLE guilt overrides the possibility of Kavanaugh's innocence in degree of importance in making a decision whether to take the risk of possibly allowing one who does not demonstrate the HIGHEST ethical standards and moral integrity that are expected of Supreme Court judges.

This is not a case of presumption of guilt without undisputed evidence. Risk factors demand for this position undisputable integrity BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT.

 

That is one possibility......
I have certainly been wrong many, many, many, many times in the past but I think that you should face the probability..... that all this fits shockingly well with the Nancy Pelosi "Wrap Up Smear" political tactic...........






"Nancy Pelosi explains 'wrap-up smear' tactic (June 22, 2017)"

 

As all of these posts seem to echo with redundancy, I will copy and paste my response to Mr. Tate:

It seems that you are reluctant to let go of your underlying assumption that Ford is lying or modifying her story for political purposes. . . . The problem with this is that those employing unethical tactics are unwilling to make the inevitable sacrifices that their morally driven and patriotic counterparts are willing to make.

If you are correct in your assumption, then Kavanaugh has indeed suffered undeserved humiliation, and I would certainly condemn Ford for maligning him and damaging his reputation, but I tend to believe that Ford has MUCH more to lose than to gain, whether allegations are true or false. . . . Does it stand to reason that Kavanaugh would admit his guilt, or that ACTUAL witnesses, who could also be considered accomplices, would validate her claim???

The preponderance of POSSIBLE guilt overrides the possibility of Kavanaugh's innocence in degree of importance in making a decision whether to take the risk of possibly allowing one who does not demonstrate the HIGHEST ethical standards and moral integrity that are expected of Supreme Court judges.

This is not a case of presumption of guilt without undisputed evidence. Risk factors demand for this position undisputable integrity BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT.

 

Copied and pasted from my response to Mr. Tate:

It seems that you are reluctant to let go of your underlying assumption that Ford is lying or modifying her story for political purposes. . . . The problem with this is that those employing unethical tactics are unwilling to make the inevitable sacrifices that their morally driven and patriotic counterparts are willing to make.

If you are correct in your assumption, then Kavanaugh has indeed suffered undeserved humiliation, and I would certainly condemn Ford for maligning him and damaging his reputation, but I tend to believe that Ford has MUCH more to lose than to gain, whether allegations are true or false. . . . Does it stand to reason that Kavanaugh would admit his guilt, or that ACTUAL witnesses, who could also be considered accomplices, would validate her claim???

The preponderance of POSSIBLE guilt overrides the possibility of Kavanaugh's innocence in degree of importance in making a decision whether to take the risk of possibly allowing one who does not demonstrate the HIGHEST ethical standards and moral integrity that are expected of Supreme Court judges.

This is not a case of presumption of guilt without undisputed evidence. Risk factors demand for this position undisputable integrity BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT.

 

The risk of what?

Do you think that under a full moon Kavanaugh turns into werewolf who only bites defenseless young females?

For 36 years he has led an exemplarily life with no hint of impropriety till Ford popped up from out of nowhere

I cant see how we risk anything by having him on the SC