re: New Trump sexual assault accusation from the Huffington Post

quote:

---

Prepare for accusations of all-out rape, attempted murder, and sodomy

---

Throw in a little beastiality and you got urself a party.

Nope, hold up....I was talking about the new lady and her book. I may have confused the person in the photo.

quote:

---

Ridder, upon what are you basing your being convinced that Kavanaugh committed this offense? As in what have you seen, read, heard personally in that regard??

---

I am not "convinced" that Kavanaugh committed the offense. I have never said that.

There are too many unanswered questions to be convinced of anything.

I am convinced that there are facts that could have been explored at the hearing that would have answered a good many of the unanswered questions, but were not explored.

My starting point is that I am convinced that Kavanaugh lied under oath at both his confirmation hearing for District Judge, and also at his confirmation hearing for the Court of Appeal when he testified about information that was surreptitiously retrieved by the Republicans about the proposed questions the Democrats were intending to ask Republican judges during their confirmation hearings.

Kavanaugh testified that he had no knowledge or suspicion that the information that was given him was surreptitiously obtained, when it is obvious he did.

Given that as a background, as far as the Ford issue was concerned, I have some skepticism about Kavanaugh,s assertions, especially those that seemed subject to question -- for example, his July 1 calendar entry about a party where many of his friends,including Mark Judge, attended.

quote:

---

Nope, hold up....I was talking about the new lady and her book. I may have confused the person in the photo.

---

The new lady. She's not even on the radar. I haven't been interested enough yet to even look into it.

quote:

---

There are too many unanswered questions to be convinced of anything.

---

10-4. Ive just gotten the impression that you are convinced of his culpability. Yep, there's bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence that can at least be considered, but at the end of the day it's a tie, if nothing else, and Id assume you might agree with that. And in the game of criminal allegations (even if not actually in court) tie goes to the runner, the accused. Because Id say even though there was no criminal penalty at stake, Kavanaugh still had considerable loss and damage on the line. So using the criminal court standard is reasonable. In doing so, and considering the evidence, Id propose that a jury would return a not guilty verdict in less than an hour.

Two front doors

quote:

---

She wasn't even thinking of Kavanaugh being confirmed. She was trying to get it out so that Kavanaugh wouldn't be nominated. She called the Wash Post anonymously. Weeks later she called her congresswoman and then through her sent a letter to Senator Feinstein, again requesting confidentiality

---

Do you ever get tired of being wrong about everything??

When she “anonymously” sent a tip to WaPo on July 6, Kavanaugh was already widely reported as being the nominee, but Trump didn’t make the “official” announcement until July 9th. Ford sent a letter to Feinstein on July 30th and she sent one to her local rep sometime between July 6th and 30th. So, she was not trying to “prevent” his nomination by getting her story out- he had already been nominated.

So, you can throw that pathetic excuse out. Which leads us to the obvious question of why Feinstein held the letter until Sept 14- for a whole month and a half- before giving it to the FBI to investigate. Just 2 days later, WaPo revealed Fords identity. And low and behold, we find out that Ford had already hired a Dem activist lawyer several weeks earlier (on recommendation by Feinstein) AND this new legal team had already summoned a dem friendly FBI agent to polygraph Ford, and Ford had passed the polygraph that consisted of only 2 questions, neither of which Had any details from her story in them.

So if Ford never planned to go public, why had she already hired Dem activist lawyers and taken a polygraph WEEKS before her identity was revealed??

I’ll give you a hint- it’s because it was all pre-planned. By Democrats. Because they were desperate to stop Trump.

ETA: I’m sure it’s also just another coincidence that of all media outlets, she chose WaPo to send her “tip” to. Then she subsequently hires Michael Bromwich as her attorney, the same Michael Bromwich who just so happens to be representing one Andrew McCabe—against accusations of leaking FBI classified info to.....WaPo. Is it any wonder she didn’t have a problem finding an FBI agent to “give her a polygraph”?!?!

What a tangled web the Dems can weave. It’s all one big massive circle jerk con job.

quote:

---

Because it's just part of your standard bullshite.

---

Nah. You just don't like obvious shite that looks bad for liberals pointed out. Oh well. IDGAF.

quote:

---

Like the claim you make all the time that the other person in the dicussion doesn't even believe what they are saying. Just how stupid is that?

---

Liberals commonly argue shite they don't believe and they OPENLY ADMIT they don't really believe in the principle the second applying that principle would gore their own ox.

quote:

---

Or when someone is stating an opinion and you call them a liar. It's an opinion jackass

---

Many opinions are opinions. Alas, liberals openly consider disingenuous rhetoric to be a tool in their kit bag. You would love it if people pretended not to notice but honestly, would you prefer we just think you're actually as stupid as you pretend to be?

quote:

---

Yep you say that same crap all the time. it's laughable.

---

Maybe you shouldn't do the same crap all the time. Then people wouldn't have to point it out all the time. You're whining is like a person being pissed at the traffic cop who pulled them over doing 100. Stop doing 100 if you don't like it.

That is a rerun from last go round.