You keep saying that you think but your posting continues not to support that assertion.Originally Posted by cwolff
Senior Member
You keep saying that you think but your posting continues not to support that assertion.
I asked for neither your Opinion,
your Acceptance
nor your Permission.
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." Dante Alighieri 3
"It took 2000 mules to install one Jackass." Diamond and Silk Watch the Movie
Senior Member
Do you honestly believe anything she says is real?
She plays a gender-confused stuttering dildo swinging paladin and spends hours of time seriously discussing political issues on a gaming forum.
Last edited by Fortybox; 10-01-2018 at 09:42 PM.
Senior Member
I'm sure the left will dismiss Ms. Mitchell's remarks but I thought her analysis was spot on:
And...the points below:In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
If there ever was a blue wave, this failed smear tactic may have just cost the Democrats any hope for control over the House or Senate. A bad move by a bunch of idiots.1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
2. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.
3. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become
less specific.
4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help
corroborate her account.
5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as
having attended—including her lifelong friend.
6. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.
7. Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her
testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.
8. Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.
9. The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s
account.
True, I really should have said I feel sorry for her imaginary students.
Senior Member
She probably argued with a "white" male student about politics at her community college and wrote that off as teaching logic to students.
Sorry but the California Education Tech Stanford degree persona is a bunch of BS.
She's the Christine Ford of the PC Forum...
Senior Member
That's so sweet of you Rocktard. Thank you for thinking of me.
Black Mamba
These text messages NBC put out prove Kavanaugh lied under oath to Congress. Bake him away toys!
Senior Member
This could get interesting.
Further, the texts show Kavanaugh may need to be questioned about how far back he anticipated that Ramirez would air allegations against him. Berchem says in her memo that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez.
Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of Ramirez’s allegation was in the Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.
Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, when he first heard of Ramirez’s allegations. Kavanaugh answered: “In the New Yorker story.”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethba...sting-n2524566
Senior Member
Quoted for when he's confirmed.
Senior Member
But nothing Kavanaugh has said on the record contradicts that. Indeed, On September 25th, Kavanaugh answered the following question under oath:
[Redacted Questioner]: All right. My last question on this subject is since you graduated from college, but before the New Yorker article publication on September 23rd, have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker?
Judge Kavanaugh: No.
If this were his only answer, it could at a stretch be cast as misleading — although it would be a big stretch, given that he was asked whether he’d heard about an “incident matching the description.” But — surprise! — this wasn’t his only answer. Just one page on in the transcript, Kavanaugh takes a break from protesting his innocence to tell the committee that he had heard that Ramirez was calling around before the specific accusation was made public:
[Redacted Questioner]: Well, actually, are you aware that the New York Times passed up on this story before the New Yorker ran the story? Judge Kavanaugh. That’s what I read in the New York Times. What’s your reaction to that?
Judge Kavanaugh: They couldn’t — the New York Times couldn’t corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that. And you know, that just strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people, is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that? That doesn’t sound — that doesn’t sound good to me. It doesn’t sound fair. It doesn’t sound proper. It sounds like an orchestrated hit to take me out. That’s what it sounds like.
“And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that.”
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. ~ Marcus Aurelius“It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“The urge to shout filthy words at the top of his voice was as strong as ever.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
