Ford lawyers say she is open to testifying, but not Monday

floridafan said:
Let the FBI deal with that, its just a continuation of his original background investigation.
Click to expand...

Let the FBI deal with "WHAT"??

They've already said that this falls under the jurisdiction of a local PD and you are so hypocritical that you won't even admit that this is just a delaying attempt, by the DNC; because they don't want Kavanaugh seated on SCOTUS.

If our current JPP liberals would approach this, by being honest, and admit that this is only about them NOT wanting Kavanaugh to be seated; then the conversation could be about your FEELINGS, instead of this "faux circus" the DNC has started.

:facepalm:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Let the FBI deal with "WHAT"??

They've already said that this falls under the jurisdiction of a local PD and you are so hypocritical that you won't even admit that this is just a delaying attempt, by the DNC; because they don't want Kavanaugh seated on SCOTUS.

If our current JPP liberals would approach this, by being honest, and admit that this is only about them NOT wanting Kavanaugh to be seated; then the conversation could be about your FEELINGS, instead of this "faux circus" the DNC has started.

:facepalm:
Click to expand...

I guess a SC nominee being charged with attempted rape of a minor is just no big deal.
 
if you are really interested in finding the facts, you would have an FBI investigation. That assumes you want the facts instead of pushing your right wing suck up on the court. Brett is a pro-birther and is unfriendly to workers and a super pro corporate vote and believes in an imperial presidency, which of course is not how he felt when he was on the Starr Commission and he worked against Bill Clinton. He is a right winger through and through ,who will be a vote for the plutocrats.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
OHHHHHHHHHHHHH; so you FEEL that when a "woman" makes an accusation, with no evidence, is ever supposed to be held accountable.

Or does this just pertain to accusations against politicians with an (R) after their name??

Go tell that to the Duke lacrosse players that had their lives ruined.
Click to expand...

what do you base that on? Do you believe guys who deny what happened with no evidence? of course you do.
 
floridafan said:
If she testifies, and comes across as a credible woman with a compelling story, it will be next to impossible to confirm Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...

Her credibility doesn't exist.

I wouldn't worry about Kavanaugh. He'll be confirmed. You should worry about the old Jewish bitch giving up the ghost and Trump getting to appoint another one. That will be a 6-3 right leaning Court and nothing you left wing America haters believe will ever be considered again in your or your kid's lifetime.
 
LV426 said:
What a fucking hack.

Kill yourself.




Her account is evidence you stupid motherfucker.

If this was an investigation, her account and statement would be submitted as a piece of evidence by a prosecutor. Even the old shits who watch Law & Order every day know that.

You're just a piece of white trash.
Click to expand...

You're losing it you motherfucking, nigger loving piece of shit.
 
Nordberg said:
what do you base that on? Do you believe guys who deny what happened with no evidence? of course you do.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who's basing all of this on my feels, like you and other liberals are.

I'm basing my conclusion on the FACT that there is no E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, which doesn't seem to matter to you or the liberals; because if it did, you and other liberals would be questioning the FACT that there is no evidence.

Would you be comfortable if you were accused of something, from over 30 years ago, and there was no evidence to support the accusation?

Would you just curl up, in a fetal position, and say: "Well; if she's accusing me, it must be true."??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I'm not the one who's basing all of this on my feels, like you and other liberals are.

I'm basing my conclusion on the FACT that there is no E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, which doesn't seem to matter to you or the liberals; because if it did, you and other liberals would be questioning the FACT that there is no evidence.

Would you be comfortable if you were accused of something, from over 30 years ago, and there was no evidence to support the accusation?

Would you just curl up, in a fetal position, and say: "Well; if she's accusing me, it must be true."??
Click to expand...

yes you are. you are making conclusions where none is justified. I don't know what happened. Nor do you. But you have no problems suggesting she is not telling the truth. I have heard nothing from her, but you are not telling the truth. Making shit up and creating conclusions.
 
Nordberg said:
yes you are. you are making conclusions where none is justified. I don't know what happened. Nor do you. But you have no problems suggesting she is not telling the truth. I have heard nothing from her, but you are not telling the truth. Making shit up and creating conclusions.
Click to expand...

I've made up nothing and every one of my conclusions are based on what is or what is not available; because she's presented NOTHING except for an accusation.

But you and other liberals hate Trump so much, that you FEEL you have to believe her; no matter what facts there are or not.

Why are you suggesting she's telling the truth??

Present your facts and I'll look at them.

Would you be comfortable if you were accused of something, from over 30 years ago, and there was no evidence to support the accusation?

Would you just curl up, in a fetal position, and say: "Well; if she's accusing me, it must be true."

:dealwithit:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I've made up nothing and every one of my conclusions are based on what is or what is not available; because she's presented NOTHING except for an accusation.

But you and other liberals hate Trump so much, that you FEEL you have to believe her; no matter what facts there are or not.

Why are you suggesting she's telling the truth??

Present your facts and I'll look at them.

Would you be comfortable if you were accused of something, from over 30 years ago, and there was no evidence to support the accusation?

Would you just curl up, in a fetal position, and say: "Well; if she's accusing me, it must be true."

:dealwithit:
Click to expand...



you do not know what is available as evidence. Nor do I. but you have no trouble claiming it does not exist. typical righty idea of fairness.
The Repubs know there are people who were around then that will testify about it. For some reason, the Repugs do not want to allow them to have their say. i guess you think that is in the interest of fairness and justice. Allowing all sides to speak is just so unfair.
 
Nordberg said:
you do not know what is available as evidence. Nor do I. but you have no trouble claiming it does not exist. typical righty idea of fairness.
The Repubs know there are people who were around then that will testify about it. For some reason, the Repugs do not want to allow them to have their say. i guess you think that is in the interest of fairness and justice. Allowing all sides to speak is just so unfair.
Click to expand...

happened 30 years ago. What should they find "fingerprints'? Your repeating what evidence is inane. This distils down to witnesses and people who were told long ago. There are plenty of women who will back her. Repubs will not allow them to testify. her shrink said she told him 5 years ago. Not permitted to speak. All they will permit is the Repub senators, all men with their minds made up to question her. Now they are thinking about having an outside lawyer, A woman, ask their questions for them. that would fool you. She will be having a script and prescribed questions. What punks, hiding behind a woman.
The FBI investigates nominees are a regular part of their duties. they are the Federal Bureau of INVESTGATION after all. Repubs are blocking it.
 
Nordberg said:
you do not know what is available as evidence. Nor do I. but you have no trouble claiming it does not exist. typical righty idea of fairness.
The Repubs know there are people who were around then that will testify about it. For some reason, the Repugs do not want to allow them to have their say. i guess you think that is in the interest of fairness and justice. Allowing all sides to speak is just so unfair.
Click to expand...

You do not know what is available as evidence. Nor do I. but you have no trouble claiming it does exist. typical liberal idea of fairness.

The Democrats know there are people who were around then that will testify for Kavanaugh; for some reason, Democrats only want to listen to Ford's unsupported accusation.

I guess you think that is in the interest of fairness and justice. Only believing in Ford's side; is just so unfair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top