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.
Bull pucky......those things are partisan witch hunts and we all know it.
Trying to innocuously present it as some sort of fair and balanced fact finding when in reality half the interviewers are out to reject you and are actively trying to dig up claims and accusations to hit you with....is a completely dishonest portrayal of reality.
What sort of word speak would be the spin for what the R's did to merrick Garland? Scheduling conflicts?
Bull pucky......those things are partisan witch hunts and we all know it.
Trying to innocuously present it as some sort of fair and balanced fact finding when in reality half the interviewers are out to reject you and are actively trying to dig up claims and accusations to hit you with....is a completely dishonest portrayal of reality.
What sort of word speak would be the spin for what the R's did to merrick Garland? Scheduling conflicts?
She said she was 100% certain it was Kavanaugh, and his friend Mark Judge. So either we believe she was assaulted by him or we don't believe her story at all. But it is wrong for us to make assumptions and change their stories to suit us. I don't know how anyone can guess she was assaulted but not by the guy she 100% identified.
If her story is true, it doesn't matter that the dems used it to their advantage. She came forward with it and does not regret it.
I can say I don't believe her accusation at all. Of course she's going to say she's 100% certain at the hearing when asked how certain she was. What else was she going to say? I don't know, I could be maybe 80% certain? Would that justify the circus hearing she created? I don't think so.
She said she was 100% certain it was Kavanaugh, and his friend Mark Judge. So either we believe she was assaulted by him or we don't believe her story at all. But it is wrong for us to make assumptions and change their stories to suit us. I don't know how anyone can guess she was assaulted but not by the guy she 100% identified.
If her story is true, it doesn't matter that the dems used it to their advantage. She came forward with it and does not regret it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones
It's not true, she lied. Her own damn friend who she listed as an witness denied it ever happened. You can't get anymore rebuked than your own damn witness saying it never happened.
No one knows jack fill in the blank here.
No one other than the three people mentioned could really
Every single pundit and every single person on this board doesn't know what happened.
There is no evidence either way, that she lied or he lied about attacking her.
It's purely he said she said based on what has been presented.
For people to speak with certainly is downright silly.
I think this was all a bunch of bull. I don't believe her. I believe him and that comes from a woman who, according to today's standards, was raped at 15. (And a virgin) Did I tell? Of course not. Would I accuse the guy 50 years later? Of course not.
OTOH, I believed Anita Hill. Big, big difference in stories and timing.
I also didn't blame Kavenaugh for being so emotional. That debacle could have not only ruined his career but his personal life. I can only imagine the emotional stress his wife and children went, are going through. Talk about a witch hunt!
She said she was 100% certain it was Kavanaugh, and his friend Mark Judge. So either we believe she was assaulted by him or we don't believe her story at all. But it is wrong for us to make assumptions and change their stories to suit us. I don't know how anyone can guess she was assaulted but not by the guy she 100% identified. .
The part that has me questioning the entire thing is how someone can't remember where it happened, how they got there, how they got home or when it happened...but are 100% sure who did it and that they'd only had 1 beer. I find it especially troubling because it conveniently removes any chance of debunking the claim with an alibi, which given the time that had passed would be the one rock solid way to defend yourself.
the more I ponder the claims of certainty of something like 1 beer but inability to recall several key events in the story I start to move from "insufficient evidence to even reasonably support guilt" to "this seems to be a manufactured accusation".
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.
