Why I think Christine Ford is lying

But political bullshit and lies is what the Dem Party's leadership is dishing out via their -- and they know she is -- insane shill, Christine Ford. But then again that's what the Trump/Russia investigation has been as well . . . leftist and RINO Trump-hating political bullshit. So . . . it . . . goes.

 

Sure the DNC is full of bullshit, but thank you for not denying that the RNC is equally full of it.

Disagreed on your conspiracy theory that Christine Ford is a Soros/DNS secret agent paid to lie under oath...but you are free to believe whatever bullshit you like.

 

Rachel Mitchell substituted for the Republicans in questioning her and the Republicans said they were very pleased with her performance. So you need to take this up with the Republicans.

 

Even Mitchell admitted at the end that her little 5 min segments were of no value to anyone. It amazes me that duly elected Republican Senators, elected to represent the interests of their own constituency, didn't even have the courage to cross-exam Ford, or to even defend Kavanaugh, until Lindsey Graham finally spoke up. What a bunch of weasels.

 

First, I have a job with long hours and don't have time to do your research for you. In a spirit of cooperation..........

Third Named Witness Rejects Kavanaugh’s Accuser’s Allegations

"a lawyer for Leland Ingham Keyser wrote:

Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.

Under 18 U.S.C § 1001, letters to the Judiciary Committee are subject to criminal penalty if false.

Comments:

Ms. Keyer, whom CNN confirms is “a lifelong friend of Ford’s,” is the third named witness to deny any knowledge of the allegations. The other two, Mark Judge and Patrick Smyth, issued written statements to that effect earlier in the week. Thus far, nobody has backed up the account advanced by Kavanaugh’s accuser, while Kavanaugh and three other named witnesses have rejected it outright.

Any Democrat voting against Kavanagh is cooked in November if their seat is up.

Currently, Democrats have 24 seats up for election, including the seats of two independents who caucus with them. Republicans have nine seats up for election.

 

His impartiality needs to be judged by his judicial voting record. If yours was the case Bader Ginsberg should be impeached for her refusal to attend Trumps state of the Union speech. It's obvious she can be impartial. Are you willing to apply your requirements of impartiality in personal beliefs to Ginsberg?

 

Good to see you back! Where have you been? I haven't seen you since we interacted in the baker thread back in February!

 

Yes, I work too. Do you honestly not see the difference between "it didn't happen" and "no recollection"?

 

"Does not know Mr Kavanaugh". So she NEVER had the occasion of meeting Kavanaugh at a party, which she goes on to say in her sworn statement. NEVER attended ANY party, with or without Ford, where Kavanaugh was present ... hence the 1st quoted sentence.

 

Thanks. I appreciate that.

 

So you think someone is lying? Agreed. Let's have a full FBI investigation to identify the criminals.

 

They are ... and I suggest they bring their polygraph equipment.

 

Of course there's a difference, in this case a moot one.

 

Sorry you can't see the difference "Professor" but obviously there is a major difference between I know something didn't happen and I don't recall if something happened just like there's a difference between I know something happened and I don't recall if something happened.

 

It means the allegation is still "unsubstantiated". The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of law in my country. Heaven knows in your country you must be guilty till proven innocent.

 

I didn't believe Christine Ford before I knew her name. I assumed that the Democrats would make some false accusation. I assumed that the Democrats would employ liars in opposition to whomever President Trump chose.
I already don't believe the next accuser of the next supreme court pick.

 

Remember all the women crawling out of the woodwork making wild claims about Trump? Falling back on that play so soon after the 2016 election is sure to get the quarterback sacked.

 

Correcte as opposed to vindicated which is the lie Brett was pushing.

Thanks for the insult and false narrative, but Brett isn't on trial. Despite all the butt-hurt Alt-Right Beta males screaming about how life has been so unfair to poor, poor Brett, he doesn't have a right to becoming a Justice. He has to earn the title by passing a job interview with Congress. He stepped in it with his poor attitude and belligerence in his testimony. The lie he told about others declaring "It didn't happen" won't be forgotten.

 

Yeah, remember when they did the same about Bill Clinton? The Republicans believed them then, so why not now?

 

Such a conspiracy and falsification of evidence as you described is illegal and should be investigated by the FBI. Why do you think Trump is refusing to do so?

 

Context. I do tend to believe Bill Clinton's accusers. The Democrats have no credibility with me. Even if the poor woman was assaulted, her association with democrats in congress is more than enough for me to condemn her.

 

I disagree.

 

Of course, context is everything. However, obviously there are plenty of people on both sides who base "context" on whether or not there is an "R" or a "D" after a person's name.

 

Sorry, but lying to Congress or the FBI is a crime.