Well hello there Justice Kavanaugh

StPaulHusker said:
The only information you gathered was what you were fed to fulfill your already made up mind.  Stop lying to yourself and to anyone else.  You didn't research anything.  If you had, you would have brought up questions as to why Kavanaugh was unwilling to take a lie detector, why Mark Judge never testified under oath about this incident, and why the president thought it was important to withhold 100K documents regarding a lot of topics surrounding Kavanaugh.  If you did research that included those 3 very important aspects and still thought it was appropriate to make an OP congratulating the man and making light of the drinking, then I know what you are saying is fraudulent.

And ONCE AGAIN.  Just because there is no evidence, doesn't make her a liar.  That's not how it works.  And you're quick to point out friends and ex-boyfriends that didn't support her claims but you just wrote off people that did support her.  So, again, you chose to believe who you wanted to believe.  That's not research.  

It doesn't matter if she didn't want to further pursue her allegations.  You wouldn't believe her anyway.  It wouldn't change your mind one bit if she brought charges against him.  You've already decided she is a liar with no basis of fact to prove it.

It doesn't surprise me that you use the Fox News talking point of "locker room talk"  It proves the point further that you do zero research except to find vindication in your own opinion of a matter.  And sure women voted for him.  There's a sucker born every minute.

Just stop acting like you try to understand both sides.  Because you don't.  You haven't.  And you have no plans to.  Just be real with yourself.  

And here's a helpful tip:  Stop trolling.  You know you're doing it.  Others know you're doing it.  
Click to expand...


Lie detector tests are not foolproof, which is why they are not admissible in court. I would never allow a client of mine to take one.

Mark Judge submitted a statement under oath and then was interviewed by the FBI. 

The 100k documents Democrats keep bleating about were almost wholly documents someone else drafted that Kavanaugh then reviewed. 

List the people who did support Ford’s account. Newsflash...there aren’t any. Unless you’re counting people she finally allegedly told about the event decades later....some “witnesses.”

 
knapplc said:
I posted one piece of corroborating evidence already, and I'll post more and more and more if you keep asking, but really, you should stop. Because this is just embarrassing for a guy who claims to have his JD.

Give us the definition of corroborating evidence, counselor.  Let's see if you actually know what it is. 
Click to expand...


The fact that she seems to have known him in 1982 is what you’re hanging your hat on? 

Seriously?

:lol:

StPaulHusker said:
Just f#&%ing stop your back pedaling.  Nothing you said prior to yesterday indicates you believe what you are trying to say now.  Just stop.  It's better for everyone if you just say what you say and don't try to back away from it later
Click to expand...


No back pedaling involved. I’ve been consistent on this. 

 
Ric Flair said:
The fact that she seems to have known him in 1982 is what you’re hanging your hat on? 

Seriously?

:lol:
Click to expand...




It refutes your claim that Blasey Ford "lacked any whatsoever."

She didn't, there's plenty, and only a person who doesn't understand the legal definition of corroborating evidence would make this mistake.

 
knapplc said:
It refutes your claim that Blasey Ford "lacked any whatsoever."

She didn't, there's plenty, and only a person who doesn't understand the legal definition of corroborating evidence would make this mistake.
Click to expand...


Plenty? You’ve pointed to the fact they seem to have known each other back then. That’s “plenty” of corroborating evidence that he sexually assaulted her?

And I’m the one who doesn’t understand what corroborating evidence is? 

:lol:

 
Ric Flair said:
Plenty? You’ve pointed to the fact they seem to have known each other back then. That’s “plenty” of corroborating evidence that he sexually assaulted her?

And I’m the one who doesn’t understand what corroborating evidence is? 

:lol:
Click to expand...


Is that or is that not corroborating evidence? Answer the question, counselor.

 
Acting like Collins, Flake, or any of these Trumpkins in here actually "gathered as much information as possible before coming to a conclusion" is disingenuous at best. That was a sham hearing (cross-examination) and investigation from the start.

 
Really enjoying this moment of silence wherein, in a sudden moment of doubt, our friendly neighborhood naturally strong counselor has run to his Black's Law dictionary to look up the actual meaning of "corroborating evidence."

 
Corroborating evidence might be a calendar, produced by the accused, demonstrating he attended a party drinking with the exact people Ford alleged. Unfortunately, the partisan prosecutor barely scratched that surface. 

 
QMany said:
Corroborating evidence might be a calendar, produced by the accused, demonstrating he attended a party drinking with the exact people Ford alleged. Unfortunately, the partisan prosecutor barely scratched that surface. 
Click to expand...


OMG SPOILERS!!!!!

It's more fun to dole it out piecemeal.  Let him keep embarrassing himself.

 
Back
Top