Is Brett Kavanaugh Innocent?

Posted by: Debating_Horse

Is he innocent or guilty?

Poll will close on 10/29/2020 at 12:00AM.
204 Total Votes

Yes, He is innocent

120 votes

No, He is guilty

58 votes


26 votes
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Debating_Horse says2018-09-27T21:06:03.0130372Z
At the time of 2020, As the confirmation passes, This poll would be "Was Brett Kavanaugh Innocent. " Now if you can excuse me, I have some awesome Taco Bell to enjoy again on this fine Thursday.
asta says2018-09-30T20:18:07.0655699Z
It would be more certain then.
TruthSpeaker7 says2018-09-30T23:23:21.4728479Z
While you can't say for certain, Since he hasn't been tried properly, And things like DNA haven't been obtained, You can still make a determination of guilt based on other factors. When you look at his behavior and Dr Ford's, She shows behavior consistent with victims, And he shows behavior consistent with someone who has committed crimes. His demeanor is very hostile. He has an incredibly short fuse, Which not only shows how he's capable of doing harm to someone, But also backs up claims many women and others have made about his short fuse. He also either avoids answering questions through silence, Or by attacking the person asking him questions. If someone was innocent of the crimes they committed, They would be more forthright. Plus, It shows a "blame the victim" attitude. Lindsey Graham showed some incredible hostility as well. I'm wondering if there's something he's covering up? Both he and Kavanaugh looked absolutely frightening.
TruthSpeaker7 says2018-09-30T23:23:43.7655337Z
While you can't say for certain, Since he hasn't been tried properly, And things like DNA haven't been obtained, You can still make a determination of guilt based on other factors. When you look at his behavior and Dr Ford's, She shows behavior consistent with victims, And he shows behavior consistent with someone who has committed crimes. His demeanor is very hostile. He has an incredibly short fuse, Which not only shows how he's capable of doing harm to someone, But also backs up claims many women and others have made about his short fuse. He also either avoids answering questions through silence, Or by attacking the person asking him questions. If someone was innocent of the crimes they committed, They would be more forthright. Plus, It shows a "blame the victim" attitude. Lindsey Graham showed some incredible hostility as well. I'm wondering if there's something he's covering up? Both he and Kavanaugh looked absolutely frightening.
MitchV says2018-10-01T18:35:29.1255507Z
@TruthSpeaker7, So your determining factors are their behaviors? Exactly how was her behavior consistent with being a victim? Was it her claimed fear of flying despite numerous past flights that she took for vacations? Was it the corrections to her written statements? After all, You would think speaking in public would be a lot more stressful than writing something out in an office setting, Yet somehow she was more accurate? Funny thing is, Her behavior should appear to be that of a victim. See, She is a professor of psychology. A person fit to educate psychologists/psychiatrists on what to look for to diagnose the exact condition she claims to have. She, Of all people, Would know exactly what to say and how to act. She was also part of research done to take data on various disorders so likely familiar with data collecting devices such as lie detectors, Know any of their inherit flaws and how to take advantage of them. Tho she might have been traumatized by someone, It might be all in her head. It may be hypochondria brought on by all the research she has done in the field. Combine that with the hysteria brought on by Trump being elected, Like how traumatized students where at Emory University over the words "Trump 2016", And you have the perfect excuse for a liberal having a mental break. As far as his testimony. Assuming he's innocent, As we should, He has been publicly accused something that not only smears his name as a judge but as a father of two young girls. He wasn't hostile but justifiably angry. I too have been the victim of false allegations of a different nature so fully understand it. A black woman I worked with made a claim that another woman(white) had said a racist term. I was in the area of them at the time but only heard the black woman say the word loudly "Do you even know what ***** means? " When she(the black woman) asked me to go with her to tell the supervisor what the other woman said, I honestly told her that I did not hear that part so later she started a rumor that I was racist. In response, I did go to my supervisor over this claim I heard her say and I was very angry at it and my expression/behavior show it. Thing is, Despite the claim, He(Kavanaugh) didn't seem angry at Ford but pity. Not just because someone may have assaulted her a long time ago but because people around her(Ford) used her as a political pawn. If anyone, He was hostile towards the democrats who used her to smear his good name. Many democrats doubt he led such a relatively clean life. I admit my own teen years were far less pure. Thing you must remember is both his parents were in the legal field at the time. His mother, Future Maryland State Circuit Judge, Had gotten a law degree from Washington College and his father was an already attorney. His parents would have literally laid down the law as he was growing up. No wonder he passed all SIX FBI background checks with flying colors. Ford case has some serious issues. She claims that she can't remember the time or place and other relevant details because of the trauma but it could also be that she want's to avoid naming any because he(Kavanaugh) may have an iron clad alibi for that day and/or place. Her statement about seeing Mark Judge working at a convenience store shortly after the incident. She even noted his reaction to seeing her. The odd thing is, According to her, He was an accomplice to a violet attack on her. Wouldn't the natural reaction be to avoid/run from any future contact? Sure, Some people bravely confront attackers but that is inconsistent with her hiding the incident from her parents and other caring people around her. Speaking of which, Let's not forget a glaring issue with her claim. Of all the people she claims as witnesses, None have backed up her claim. Tho you wouldn't expect the alleged perpetrators to admit it, That does not explain why the other, Non-suspect witnesses, Including a long term friend of hers to deny knowledge of any such party. It's not just a case of she said vs he said but one of she said vs they said. As far as Graham is considered. He was also only hostile towards the democrats who hid knowledge of this till the last minute so they could drag this out for as long as possible. It could have been handled weeks prior behind closed doors like Ford wanted but they decided to wait till a vote was about due to spring it and now are trying to stall. Probably hoping to drag it till after the mid-terms. This way they can deny Kavanaugh and anyone else Trump tries to appoint despite any outcome. This is a common tactic democrats have deployed in just about every case. It even has a term "Borking" after the smear campaign worked so well to deny Robert Bork from his being appointed by Reagan. In the end, Your behavior assumptions only work if we assume guilt ahead of time as you likely had. Sorry but the standard is the assumption of innocence until proven guilty and with the lack of anything corroborating Ford's allegations, There isn't even a case. Speaking of a case, Why the FBI? No part of this case is an FBI matter. It didn't involve money such as bank robbery and didn't involve crossing state lines. It's a claim of sexual assault involving minors so should be handled by local Maryland law enforcement. Can you give any good reason why this is a case for the FBI?
Our_Boat_is_Right says2018-10-02T01:30:22.2006120Z
Damn this dude wrote a whole essay my guy
MitchV says2018-10-02T13:34:58.1281273Z
@Our_Boat_is_Right, Sorry, Got on a bit of a rant there. It's only because the liberal media insisting his guilt that he was already found guilty by some people long before either said a word in the hearing.
Richeyh says2018-10-03T18:32:40.6332055Z
@Truthseeker7 WOW, MitchV just roasted you bud. Seriously, It's quite obvious your bias. And its pretty sad you can't look at the facts without a bias view, Ford showed all the signs of a person who's lying. Kavanaugh showed all the signs of being nervous and distraught, Most likely because his whole life could be ruined whether true or not. Which, Its not. You damn liberal half wits make my blood boil.
Richeyh says2018-10-03T18:37:25.0084136Z
@MitchV and yea you wrote an essay, But that's because there's a tremendous amount of evidence that says Ford is lying. Sometimes essay's are needed to educate the dim witted, And I hope that you at least educated Truthseeker a tad bit cause lord knows people like him/she really need a little educating.
testifiedWrong says2018-10-04T14:46:59.0503705Z
At this point I can't say for sure whether Ford or Kavanaugh are telling the whole truth. I've been a victim of sexual abuse and assault myself, And I can confirm that you tend to not remember all the details leading up to the attack, If any. Sometimes people even completely repress those memories. The brain is just trying to protect itself from trauma. However, Given that, There are still inconsistencies with Ford's testimony. The whole airplane ordeal is one. If she was so afraid to get on an airplane, Why did she fly to the hearing herself? Multiple people during the hearing have stated that they offered to fly to her location. Yet she claims to have no knowledge of those offers. It could be a simple misunderstanding, But at the same time, It really shouldn't have been an issue in the first place, If it was handled correctly. Another issue is the fact that she didn't hire attorneys until after speaking with her senator. I understand that she might have thought that she had to go to her senator because of the likelihood of the confirmation, But at the same time, Her issue is a personal issue. Sexual assault cases should not be handled by senators. They should be handled by judges in court. Moving onto Kavanaugh. I do not trust his credibility because throughout the hearing, He rarely answered questions in a straightforward manner. I understand he is angry, However that is not an excuse for not properly answering questions. He just repeated the same things over and over again, Things that people had already heard and taken into consideration. Some of the things he liked to repeat were his grades throughout school, The fact that he went to Yale, The fact that he coaches girls basketball (I think), And that he had plenty of female friends in his school career. As I said before, Those had already been taken into consideration. What mattered at that time was getting answers to questions that he kept dodging repeatedly. Was he a heavy drinker? Did he ever drink to the point of blacking out? Did he behave in a violent manner when extremely drunk? Those questions and questions related to the topic never got straight answers. All he said was that he "liked beer". Ok, But how much? If he didn't drink heavily, Then he shouldn't have had a problem answering the questions. I can't help but assume he's dodging those questions for a reason. The senators didn't help either, Honestly. Throughout both Ford's and Kavanaugh's hearings you could see the bias on both sides. When Ford was on the stand, The Republicans had a prosecutor speak FOR them. I don't think any one of them directly spoke to Ford. The Democrats did, But 50% of those who spoke only made statements in favor of Ford, Rather than asking questions to further prove Ford's credibility. When Kavanaugh was on the stand, You saw the change immediately. The prosecutor that the Republican's had when Ford was up was gone. The Republicans spoke directly to Kavanaugh, And only one of those senators asked Kavanaugh questions. The Democrats did most of the questioning. Kavanaugh had a clear bias towards the Republicans. Then those senators made their statements, Kavanaugh stayed quiet and respectful of them. He did not interrupt. When the Democrats spoke to him and asked their questions, He was the exact opposite. He flared up immediately and refused to directly answer questions, Opting to completely avoid the questions and talk about how good of a man he was and how victimized he was. He interrupted the senators and pretty much wasted the 5 minutes that each senator had. As I stated earlier, I can't help but think he's avoiding those questions for a reason. Taking all of this into consideration, This whole thing seems to be shoddily put together, On both sides. If done properly, This wouldn't have been so much of a hassle. Regardless, Whether Kavanaugh is guilty or innocent, He still should not be confirmed. He may be a good person, But considering how much bias he has, He should not be in the Supreme Court. That is a life long position, And one of the most influential seats in the whole country. He has to be able to put aside his biases and the intensity of his emotions to be a good Supreme Court judge, And based on what I saw while watching the hearings, He is not able to do that.
MitchV says2018-10-05T15:35:51.2915702Z
@testifiedWrong, Glad to see your didn't jump to a conclusion as many have long before hearing from either. Sorry to hear that you have been victimized but I have been falsely accused of a different claim in the past. To that, I can understand Kaanaugh's outrage when his character was publicly discredited. About her testimony. This could have been handled long before but she claimed to have a fear of flying. This is what prompted them to offer to fly to her. Then we found out that she has flown quite often on vacation trips. Yes, I understand that trauma may make it difficult to remember minor details, If you want to call the time and place minor. Funny thing is, She remembered she only had one beer. Something that would be more minor. Then there are the witnesses she claimed who either refuted her story or denied knowledge of it. Where they traumatized too? Actually, The attorney was not used the whole time but dismissed about in the middle. The reason why many used her to ask questions was simple. Had they asked her questions, The media would have stated how they attacked an alleged victim. As far as his testimony, Can you define "heavy drinker"? You may have your opinion of what one is but it may be very different from someone else. His list of character witnesses include people who knew him for more than 36 years including ex-girlfriends, Yet they never mentioned any such issues with his drinking. Another issue is the term "violent manner" when drinking. Would you consider throwing ice cubes violent? What about speaking loudly? Some may say yes, Some no. Using vague terms, It's easy to paint someone as lying and they just wanted to paint him as a fall down drunk. Of course Kavanaugh was speaking more respectful to the republicans, They were not trying to smear his name, Unlike the democrats. One thing I don't think was brought up was Kavinaugh's parents. At the time of the alleged incident, Both his parents where in the legal profession. His parents would have literally laid down the law in the home. No wonder his record is so spotless. Another thing that was barely mentioned is Ford profession. She's a professor of psychology. She is basically able to train psychiatrists what to look for to diagnose things like her claimed condition. She would have clear knowledge of exactly what to day to a psychiatrist to make her claim believable. Combine that with her bias against republicans and of the Kavanaugh's as his mother presided when her parents were foreclosed on. Another plausible reason is that due to her profession, She may have suffered from a form of hypochondria. Basically, After reading symptoms (convincing herself she has them) and subconsciously identifying with real victims, She may have believed this must have happen to her. Yes, This could have been handled much better by the democrats, Specifically Feinstein. She could have brought this up in the interview with Kavanaugh, Then launched a private investigation into the allegations. This would have kept Ford's name out of the press as she (Ford) wanted. The local Bethesda, Maryland police department with assistance from the state police. Over that two month time, They might have been able to solve the case, One way or the other, But no. She sat on it until it to into the papers. Still, She and maybe her democrat colleagues where the only ones who knew her name. Who do you think leaked her name resulting in her (Ford's) harassment? Since then, It's been delay, Delay, Delay by the democrats. Like it or not, EVERY judge in every court has a personal bias. Kavanaugh, Would be one of 9 judges on that court so it's not just his opinion/bias. Kavanaugh is also a constitutional judge so goes by the law unlike an activist judge who tries to change law on the bench. Sure, His own personal bias may influence how he interprets that law but so will the bias of the other 8 judges. You say that his testimony makes him unqualified but how might you respond if someone dragged you, And your family through the mud for political reasons? Let's not forget how this could impact his daughters (10&13 year old). They have to face others in school and church who will being saying their father is a rapist.
charlee says2018-10-06T18:26:49.5830117Z
Do men lie? Do women lie? Do men tell the truth? Do women tell the truth? The most reasonable answer, Based on evidence, To each of the questions is, "yes. " Therefore, He said vs. She said, Needs corroborative evidence to support one side or the other. Kavanaugh provided the evidence, Ford did not.
testifiedWrong says2018-10-08T18:41:54.6509224Z
At this point, The argument doesn't matter anymore. Kavanaugh got confirmed, So even if it was a political scheme to keep him out of the Supreme Court, It didn't work. It was a mess anyways. This could have been handled in a much more professional manner.
danes8 says2018-10-11T20:33:26.3237719Z
Without any proper FBI investigation that doesn't have any limit to who they can interview, Nor a time limit, I could say. Now, It is impossible to say and those who say that he isn't innocent and those who insist that he is are both quite wrong. While innocent until proven guilty doesn't necessarily apply because this was a job interview, Not a legal case, It is important to remember that these are just allegations. Now it is ridiculous to suggest that there is a conspiracy theory going on in the left and that Dr. Ford actually lied about everything. Just because she couldn't remember certain parts, Actually often means the opposite. For more about the previous statement, Watch this video with an open mind: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=pyLvAxs0MXU&t=2s A polygraph test doesn't actually ever prove anything and can be easily manipulated by the person answering the questions. In other words, Forget the polygraph. While it is true that Dr. Ford is a psychology professor and could theoretically fake through everything with such accuracy, That one actually believed her, But this is ridiculous because then we wouldn't have witnesses coming out and some saying that Kavanaugh lied. If the party wasn't special, It makes sense that people forgot about it, But this party was special to Dr. Ford and therefore she could remember it, Unlike most witnesses. I'd actually argue that her being a psychology professor and knowing a lot about sexual assault and psychology enhances her credentials. She knew why she remembers what she remembers and she gave factual, Scientific reasons for why she was sure that Kavanaugh did what she alleges he did. In fact, She wanted not to come out. If she was lying, Why did she not want to accuse Kavanaugh? Doesn't make any sense. Now, Should we then conclude that Kavanaugh is, In fact, A sexual predator? No. That is also ridiculous. There is no concrete proof that shows that he is guilty, But as a justice of the SCOTUS, Shouldn't there be concrete proof that he is innocent. He didn't provide any. Again, This doesn't mean in any way that he is guilty, But since the hearings were a job interview, Not a court case, The idea innocent before proven guilty didn't apply. In the end, I call for a thorough investigation by the FBI, Not limited in any way for us to find the truth. Let's stop calling Dr. Ford a liar and spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories, But also stop calling Kavanaugh a rapist. Before we find the truth, He shouldn't be appointed. Since we aren't professors of psychology, We should not make judgments about her reactions to different people. Logic can't explain many of our actions. Psychology is not logic. But for all those in support of Kavanaugh, I have a few extra points. 1. Trump chose Kavanaugh out of a list of conservative judges and lawyers and in fact, The creator of this list, President of the Federalist Society said that everyone on the list is very good, So why doesn't the GOP just use another judge or lawyer not being accused of sexual assault? Wouldn't it be much ethically better for the GOP? 2. Kavanaugh lied about small little details about his time in high school like e. G. What different drinking games and sexual acts were that he did in HS. Why did he need to do that? He should have not lied. 3. A judge should be able to stay calm at all times, Especially a supreme court judge. Kavanaugh was clearly not. If the allegations are untrue, He was right, But in any case, He should have stayed really calm and not talk about a "left conspiracy theory". Personally, I would react as he reacted, But he should be held to a much higher standard than me, An average Joe. 4. The US is more liberal than conservative, Bluer than red e. G. Popular vote of the president. It doesn't make sense for a liberal country to have a conservative supreme court. We need a justice who is a moderate, Not a conservative. 5. Now that you are whining about this, You know how liberals felt about the disgusting move that the GOP did with Garland. They could have at least had a hearing and voted not to confirm him, But what they did is clearly wrong. 6. Just because Kavanaugh's parents were judges and lawyers, It doesn't mean that Kavanaugh followed the law when he was young. 7. This case should be handled by the FBI because a). Kavanaugh is going to become a federal judge, So it might help that a federal agency investigates him. B). The FBI is very well funded and has much more experience than e. G. Local police. If we really want to find out the truth, Don't we want to use the best agency for investigations there is? P. S. You can obviously see that I am a liberal and am biased against him, But I do not, In any way, Believe that Kavanaugh, For sure, Sexually assulted Dr. Ford. I hate jumping to conclusion.
catdog33233 says2018-10-12T01:34:02.2414472Z
They voted him innocent
catdog33233 says2018-10-12T01:36:59.5510472Z
Poor brett
billsands says2018-10-12T05:58:42.0742472Z
Spoiled drunken frat brat oh he did it
MitchV says2018-10-12T14:02:28.9647277Z
@danes8, The FBI didn't want the case to begin with. It was an allegation about sexual assault between a 17 & 15 yr old, So it wasn't a federal crime. If anything it's a case for the Maryland police. Still, The FBI talked to every witness Ford listed and their story did not change so there was still no collaboration. Thing is, No matter who holds the investigation, Where could they begin? She has no idea where it happened and when it happened tends to change between the early and mid 80's. The whole flying thing is even more bizarre when you hear that she went on several commercial airlines on vacations, So her alleged fear of flying is bunk. It's also very opportune for this life long suffering to only be important once Kavanaugh's name came up for a possible selection. The senator (Feinstein), Had knowledge of the claim yet never mentioned it in and public or private statements like when she interviewed him. The entire thing could have been handled behind closed doors to protect Ford's identity, Yet no. Someone on the Democrats side leaked her name along with the story and it became a trial by media. As far as his answers. Did you notice the questions like "Are you a heavy drinker? " Can you define "heavy drinker"? No, So any answer could be interpreted as a lie. A. K. A. A perjury trap. He does admit to drinking beer on occasion but the Dem's just wanted to paint him as a fall down drunk no matter what he answered. That is likely why he answered how he did. You also have to take into consideration that his parents are and were in the legal field. His parents would have literally laid down the law at home. Any wonder why he had a relatively innocent childhood? "But since the hearings were a job interview, Not a court case, " You just said they were "hearings". What kind of job interview has a hearing? Fact is, The job interviews happened before when each senator personally interviewed Kavanaugh. If this case WAS part of an interview, It should have come up when Feinstein interviewed him. Face it, The whole purpose of the "hearing" was to determine if he was guilty of the allegations. That means, It was a trial so the liberals can stop with that "interview" nonsense. "Shouldn't there be concrete proof that he is innocent. " Thanks for reinforcing how it was a trial, Not an interview. Thing is, How could anyone prove innocence when they don't have a day or place? A judge should stay calm at all times? Iv'e seen footage of Judges shouting at attorneys and others in the court room when they act out of order. Even banging the gavel is often their way of yelling "Shut up". Tell you what. Next time your in front of a judge. Accuse them of something. You can say "Do I smell alcohol on your breath judge? " and let me know if they have an emotional response. Fact is, He wasn't acting as judge at the time, He was the accused. He and his family, Including his two little girls, Have been dragged through the mud over the prior weeks and now he was being constantly accused of sexual assault on national television by multiple senators. I am a normally calm man, Even in intense situations but I think any man would be outraged under those circumstances. Personally, I'm surprised he stayed as composed as he did. People often say how compelling Ford's testimony was. She came across as a bit timid so people would say "That's just how a person in that situation would act. " Thing is, She could have been irate like the woman in the elevator with Flake and they would still have said the exact same thing. There was no wrong way for her to act and there was never going to be any right way for Kavanaugh to act to make him look innocent. Had he remained calm, He would have been looked at as heartless. I could go on but it's really a mute point. He is now, Officially, A SCOTUS.
danes8 says2018-10-12T21:42:11.8786079Z
@mitchV Ok, Sure, Let the Maryland police conduct the investigation, But the fact that the FBI investigation that did take place was so limited, That they didn't interview Kavanaugh or Ford. Doesn't that seem strange? Also, Both of us are not experts in solving such crimes so asking questions like how would the determine whether Dr. Ford is right is unnecessary. We both don't know the answers cause we aren't experts. I have a phobia of spiders, But that doesn't mean that I never kill or have to touch spiders. She does have a phobia of flying, And she had to overcome it when she flew, That's how phobias work, Ask a psychologist e. G. Dr. Ford. Dr. Ford didn't want this at all discussed with anyone, Not behind closed or open doors. This isn't a huge conspiracy theory. She just didn't want this to be revealed to anyone. That's it. It did get leaked in the end, But all of this wasn't on purpose and suggesting that any of this was is again ridiculous. Brett Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker. Sure, There is no exact definition, But all witness testimonies from friends of Kavanaugh and his college roommate suggest that he was often drunk and when drunk could get angry and sometimes be violent like when he threw a beer can at someone. You absolutely took my words out of context. What I said was that it was in Kavanaugh's best interest and in the interest of the SCOTUS and US as a country to make sure that the person who was being nominated for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court wasn't a rapist etc. And to have proof of that. That is why I was surprised when I found out that the FBI investigation was limited in any way. Also, Filibusters were banned from being used by Mitch McConnel for the justice nominees. A simple majority for a lifetime positions on the most important court of the US? Are you kidding me? The purpose of the hearing was to ask questions about the allegations and from that decide, Should I trust Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford. It was not a court case for many reasons like the fact that there weren't any other witnesses. This was supposed to help the senators decide who to believe. These hearings did not find whether anyone was guilty. "I've seen footage of Judges shouting at attorneys and others in the courtroom when they act out of order. " Are you seriously comparing a supreme court judge and an average judge? It would be like comparing the things a janitor can do before he is fired and the things a president is allowed to do. Kavanaugh should have been calm, Not talk about any conspiracy theory, Not lied about what e. G. A devils triangle is (it's a threeway, Not a drinking game as Kavanaugh insisted) etc. He should have shown that even when accused with false accusations, He will show strength and calmness. He is witty and precise. Not arrogant as he was when answering some senators questions like: "Have you ever passed out when you were drinking. " "I don't know, Have you? " If he had done those things and a proper investigation was done, We could have said that Kavanaugh is absolutely innocent. Also, Again, The US is a more liberal country than conservative and it makes 0 sense that in a country that is liberal to have a conservative supreme court.
hello_Idiots says2018-10-13T02:22:44.6111841Z
Dr. Ford has no corroborating evidence, Her account of the event has changed between her polygraph and Testimony, She refuses to turn over her therapist's notes despite eaped requests from the Senate despite the fact that she says the notesprove her story, All the witnesses (Kananough, Judge, PJ, Her best friend) deny it, She somehow got home 7 miles (as the crow flies) from the house as a fifteen year old in the 1980's, And she cannot remember positivly WHAT YEAR HE EVENT TOOK PLACE IN.
danes8 says2018-10-14T06:25:04.6033579Z
@hello_Idiots What the witness' have said is that they don't remember this party and this makes sense, It wasn't a special party. Do you remember what you ate for breakfast 34 years ago? But if you were being tortured while eating breakfast, You would remember that breakfast, But the interesting thing is, That you would only remember certain parts because that's how memory works. Watch this video for more: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=pyLvAxs0MXU&t=3s
MitchV says2018-10-15T06:44:23.6856598Z
@danes8, Yes, I'm sure the democrats would have loved for there to be an endless investigation without any limitations. Granted, Once the democrats would have eventually gained power to outvote or position as president to name their own judge, It would come to an end. They would want to stop any nomination by Trump at any cost, Even to their own reputation. Sure, Despite a fear of flight, She may have taken flights out of necessity or as part of her therapy. Clearly vacation flights were not a necessity were testifying would be. If it was for therapy reasons, Then this flight too could be therapeutic. You don't need to be an expert to see the gaping hole in her fear of flying claim, Coupled with her claim that she was never told they would fly out to her. Either her lawyer broke the law by failing to tell her, Her memory can't be trusted, Or her alleged fear was just made up as an excuses to delay or avoid the hearing. So she didn't want it discussed in any way? Odd when she quickly hired an attorney and discussed it with her. She had to discuss it also with the ones doing the lie detector, Her psychiatrist, The news paper she sent the article to. Yes, She did want it discussed at all. Sure, She may have wanted to protect her identity but had it been handled behind closed doors, There would be no need to reveal her identity. Problem for the democrats was, Keeping it behind closed doors was less convincing to the public so someone on their side, Maybe even Ford herself, Leaked her name so it would become a national spectacle. To prove he's not a rapist? First off, Ford never claimed that, Only sexual assault. Secondly, How could you prove that you were not present when your not given a date or place? If I claimed to see you commit a crime back when you were about 17, Can you provide evidence of exactly were you were and what you were doing at every moment back then? Basically, Your asking the impossible but that's besides the fact that it is up to the accused to prove her side and even her witnesses can't back up her story. It was Harry Reid (D) who ended filibusters for all nominations by the president. That with the only exception as supreme court. The only thing McConnell did was include it. What, Democrats don't like using the same rules? Not surprising. "The purpose of the hearing was to ask questions about the allegations and from that decide. " A "hearing" about "allegations" of a criminal act under penalty of law (perjury). What part of that does NOT sound like a trial? The differences is, About half the jury also were the prosecution who were openly claimed their belief of guilt long before the hearing. So ya, It wasn't a trial, It was an inquisition. President Trump did nominate someone without a criminal past. He had already gone through 6 thorough FBI investigation in the past that said as such. Fact is, No matter who he nominated, The democrats would have found someone to make some kind of unproven allegation just as they have done many times before. Either way, Nobody Trump nominated would have ever gotten 60 votes unless it was someone who was openly democrat. We could also stop saying that Kavanaugh lied yet the democrats won't. Fact is, I and many people are not saying, That she necessarily lied but that she may be mistaken. From what I have heard, These are recovered memories so are subject to flaws. It's also very possible that it's due to her long term exposure to similar cases that she has developed identified herself as being traumatized. I also find it funny how the claimed second entrance was not because of her trauma but because they were running a business out of their home. That it was meant to keep clients out of their home that adjoined the business. Sounds like her lies are stacking up. If your stacking lies to back up a case, Maybe the case it'self is a lie. "left conspiracy theory" It's not a conspiracy theory. It's an obvious fact that the left were out to do anything to stop his nomination. "Devils triangle" is another name for the Bermuda Triangle tho it could be used for any number of other names. Not sure why you would use a term like that in place of 3 way when it's no shorter. I remember playing another drinking game "Pass the Pigs" that involved pig shaped dice but someone of a perverted mind could believe it's passing around a bunch of ugly women. I was not there and I doubt you were either. I can't say it was, In fact, A drinking game no more than you can say it was, In fact, A sexual act. So you can't say, For a fact, That he was lying. Sure, He could have said "I don't remember. " but that would only strengthen the idea that he may drink to the point of memory loss thus make it more probable. Thing is, His character references who knew him back then, All said it was out of his character and odds are, They knew him when he had been drinking too. Personally, I'm glad the democrats are suffering the results of their unhanded tactics.
EK49824 says2018-10-17T21:23:15.5457136Z
Why would she accuse him right before his confirmation? Why not the 30 something years ago if it actually happened? No sense at all.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.