Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so you want to use her as a credible source? LMAO!!!
What about her:
Quote:
Elizabeth Rasor, who dated Mark Judge for three years, came forward after hearing his statement.
"I can't stand by and watch him lie. Mark told me a very different story." Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman.
The New Yorker stooped to publish a shoddy story alleging that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a woman while he was at Yale. The alleged incident occurred at a drunken party when both were in their freshman year. What’s extraordinary is that the woman making the charge, a fellow Yale student named Deborah Ramirez, admits that she hesitated to come forward because there were such large gaps in her memory.
As the magazine puts it: “In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” She only decided to talk, it says, “after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.”
Even after her new-found certainty — which happens to accord with her political interest as a Democrat — her story still contains gaps. She was drunk and didn’t directly see that it was Kavanaugh who put his penis in front of her face when she was on the floor. She says she heard someone yell out that it was Kavanaugh who had done this, and she saw him make a motion afterward that was consistent with pulling up his pants. So even she is making the charge as a matter of hearsay and interpretation.
The only other corroboration is an unidentified classmate who tells the magazine that he heard of the incident afterwards — in other words, more hearsay.
Otherwise, the authors write, “The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party,” a rather important lacuna if you are publishing a story that will contribute to an effort to destroy a man’s reputation. (Where’s William Shawn when you need him?) Two male students identified by Ramirez as being present at the party said they had no recollection of any such incident.
The New Yorker story comes on the heels of another blow to the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford’s account. She has identified four other people who were present at the high-school party where Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her as a teenager. All have denied it, now including Leland Keyser, who is a long-time friend of Ford’s and a Democrat. She told the Judiciary Committee through her lawyer, “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.”
Clearly, the opposition to Kavanaugh hopes that the two stories — with perhaps more on the way — will support each other despite their inherent weakness. If Democrats take down Kavanaugh on the basis of these charges, they will have achieved the miraculous by stopping a Supreme Court nominee with two unproven and probably unprovable charges, in a smashing victory for garbage-pail politics.
The New Yorker stooped to publish a shoddy story alleging that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a woman while he was at Yale. The alleged incident occurred at a drunken party when both were in their freshman year. What’s extraordinary is that the woman making the charge, a fellow Yale student named Deborah Ramirez, admits that she hesitated to come forward because there were such large gaps in her memory.
As the magazine puts it: “In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” She only decided to talk, it says, “after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.”
Even after her new-found certainty — which happens to accord with her political interest as a Democrat — her story still contains gaps. She was drunk and didn’t directly see that it was Kavanaugh who put his penis in front of her face when she was on the floor. She says she heard someone yell out that it was Kavanaugh who had done this, and she saw him make a motion afterward that was consistent with pulling up his pants. So even she is making the charge as a matter of hearsay and interpretation.
The only other corroboration is an unidentified classmate who tells the magazine that he heard of the incident afterwards — in other words, more hearsay.
Otherwise, the authors write, “The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party,” a rather important lacuna if you are publishing a story that will contribute to an effort to destroy a man’s reputation. (Where’s William Shawn when you need him?) Two male students identified by Ramirez as being present at the party said they had no recollection of any such incident.
The New Yorker story comes on the heels of another blow to the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford’s account. She has identified four other people who were present at the high-school party where Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her as a teenager. All have denied it, now including Leland Keyser, who is a long-time friend of Ford’s and a Democrat. She told the Judiciary Committee through her lawyer, “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.”
Clearly, the opposition to Kavanaugh hopes that the two stories — with perhaps more on the way — will support each other despite their inherent weakness. If Democrats take down Kavanaugh on the basis of these charges, they will have achieved the miraculous by stopping a Supreme Court nominee with two unproven and probably unprovable charges, in a smashing victory for garbage-pail politics.
Leland Keyser also said that she believed Christine Blasey Ford's statements about what occurred to her absolutely.
having consensual sex with women that are drunk is not against the law. People have sex after drinking lots amount of alcohol , it's more common than you think....also people having sex under the effects of drugs is common in America, you should come to Hollywood and Las Vegas.
....again, if she thinks her ex-boyfriend raped a woman that was drunk then call the police, why tell the New Yorker when her boyfriend told her it was consensual.....(I'm going by her story)
you forgot to mention, "She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated."
Leland Keyser also said that she believed Christine Blasey Ford's statements about what occurred to her absolutely.
she is her longtime friend....that is her supporting her as a friend and her opinion has no weight........what's important is that she can't back Ford's claims....she can't even put Kavanaugh in the same party as Ford.
having consensual sex with women that are drunk is not against the law. People have sex after drinking lots amount of alcohol , it's more common than you think....also people having sex under the effects of drugs is common in America, you should come to Hollywood and Las Vegas.
So you think "taking turns having sex with a drunk woman" is no big thing? It's something lots of guys do?
Thank you for showing me who you are, so I don't waste any more time with you.
So you think "taking turns having sex with a drunk woman" is no big thing? It's something lots of guys do?
Thank you for showing me who you are, so I don't waste any more time with you.
if it's consensual or it's a prostitute or an escort and she is an adult then it's NONE of my business.
prostitution is the oldest profession in the world......and some women are addicted to sex.........again, I have no problem with consensual sex if they are adults.
if you think that is rape, then call the police.
since when liberals became puritans about consensual sex?
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9 How would that statute be relevant,? The alleged crime was not committed today.
Do you really not understand how this works? No statute of limitations means that whenever an alleged crime happened, the alleged perp can be tried for it, even if said crime is uncovered years later, as in this case.
so we should make illegal all CONSENSUAL sex under the influence of alcohol or drugs?.....3 somes, 4 somes, orgies....pornos with multiple partners should be illegal.
good luck enforcing that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
