Christine Ford Willing To Testify on 9-27-2018 that SCOTUS Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Assaulted Her.

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: carewemust

can we talk in german?(:
i don't know her and so i don't know why she didn't tell her parents. but as i mentioned in a other comment, a friend of mine was close to an rape and she never tells her mom - because she doesn't want her to be worried.

OK.. I understand. When my babysitter used to "assault" me, I never told my parents. I enjoyed it and looked forward to the next time she babysat.

What if her unlimited time clause was her thinking she could filibuster until November. Lol. Ok I’m getting delirious. Time for bed

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
What if her unlimited time clause was her thinking she could filibuster until November. Lol. Ok I’m getting delirious. Time for bed

I think Nancy Pelosi spoke for 2 days straight on behalf of "DACA Children" early this year.

I smell a rat, why should he testify first, shouldn’t he be able to refute and defend allegations against himself?

Why no outside counsel? She wants to ruin a career but doesn’t want a cross examination of her claims?

On the surface, it is my belief that probably nothing happened, if anything happened it was two horny teenagers playing grab ass. At best, this is a woman wanting her 5 minutes of fame and a book deal. At worst it’s a complete lie and another paid tactic by the Democratic left to circumvent the constitutional process. Either way I don’t see any up side for the Democrats and they are not winning points with the citizenry. The midterms are coming.

a reply to: carewemust

If she is so good a psychologist why does she need a therapist? Physician heal thyself. Kavanaugh has already given his testimony like it has been stated. The burden of proof is on her.

After this debacle are we going to work on Ellison and Booker or are we going to be hypocrites and let them slide?

Nice so who is in charge of the hearing anyway?? Monday bitch be there would be my response. What happens Thursday when she has the flu???

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
The thing that stands out to me is why would she want Kavanaugh to go first? Puts him at a way unfair disadvantage. How can he know what he’s defending himself against? How can they even ask pertinent questions if he goes first?It’s supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. This reeks of deception. And no, nothing can come out of it this way but her pulling on heartstrings

I asked that same question earlier in another thread. One answer was (in addition to what you said), Christine will make the allegations, and another hearing day will need to be set up for Brett to respond to those allegations. It drags things out.

Democrats really believe that they are going to take Senate seats from Republicans in November. But I have no idea how they can drag out Kavanaugh's confirmation THAT long.

Bingo!

Yep it’s more gamesmanship by her to drag this out

I predicted early that she would wait until the last minute and change her mind about speaking to the senate, but say it had to be at a later date than what was offered

That’s exactly what happened, because she is playing politics with this

How can she demand he speak first?

He cant deny allegations he hasn’t heard

It is the basic right of the accused to know exactly what they are accused of

The only reason for her demand is she knows Kavanaugh will have to respond to her allegations once she presents them, this delaying the process even further

Now not only will the Dems immediately say there needs to be an fbi investigation after this, but I predict they will say something else came up that needs to be looked at, this further pushing back the vote

It is so transparent what is happening, but so many people are willing to use allegations of sexual assault to play politics

Absolute BS.

They need to hurry and approve Kavanaugh.

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: Guyfriday

but maybe she was sexually assaulted. happens all the time. it seems you guys don't like women to stand up and fight against all these arseholes around the globe. ats is getting more and more a forum for hate and frustration.

yeah, and maybe she wasnt. It seems like all you guys want to convict the man even though there is literally zero evidence except for her testimony.......that isnt how justice works, at all.

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: Guyfriday

but maybe she was sexually assaulted. happens all the time. it seems you guys don't like women to stand up and fight against all these arseholes around the globe. ats is getting more and more a forum for hate and frustration.

BS.

I straight up don't believe, on the eve of a major nomination that the Dims hate, OF COURSE A SEXUAL ASSUALT ALLEGATION would surface.

Its a BS move by the and terrible use of power as they are pushing this themselves, nuclear option, accuse the man of sexual assualt and taint him.

Hell naw, I devotely support this man and hope this broad gets whats coming to her and the GD dim party for pushing that BS.

This will come back to bite the dims in the ass, they have no more power.

a reply to: carewemust

What is she afraid of exactly, that she deems these demands necessary? I can understand the security issue, but everything else- I would love to see it articulated exactly what is her fear behind each of her requests. That would be interesting and enlightening. Not saying there isn't necessarily legitimate cause for each one, but I would like to know the why behind each one.

a reply to: avgguy

It seems very suspicious that she wants to testify last. Especially considering her story is vague at best.

Try to defend an accusation of, "It happened between '82 and '84" seems pretty ridiculous.

originally posted by: Feltrick
a reply to: avgguy

It seems very suspicious that she wants to testify last. Especially considering her story is vague at best.

Try to defend an accusation of, "It happened between '82 and '84" seems pretty ridiculous.

Perhaps the Dems are hoping to drag out some specific details about Kavanaugh actual timeline back then, so then she can change her story again by adding another connection?

The Dems plan is to try Kavanugh in the kangaroo courts of public opinion where FACTS aren't needed.

If there was anything to this Kavanaugh would have been charged decades ago.

SEE this BS for what is.

I think that the way this played out from the Democrat side of things has once again done nothing good for them.

1. It disgusts so called "independents", especially men, and this time not just white men. Why? Well now you have this idea that someone can ruin a career move you make based on something you may or may not have done with a female when you were in high school. This is patently ridiculous.

2. It is definitely making some traditional Republicans realize that the old way of doing business on the hill is rapidly changing. There is no more "you scratch my back I'll scratch your back" going on. In a sense this has awakened a "sleeping beast" of sorts. I think the only thing power broker democrats - and lesser ones as well - have to look forward to is an unbroken chain of forever allegations and investigations.

3. It gives Trump more power just in the old, "see I told you so" formulation.

4. There might even be some rational democrat female voter base that sees this for what it is and #walkaway.
Edit on number 4: None of these females will be from the east coast north of Virginia or the metro areas of the west coast - obviously. :-)

a reply to: carewemust

Why does the defendant have to defend himself before he actually knows what the accusations are?

If there is no evidence or witnesses willing to corroborate her story why even bother with the hearing?

Seems absolutely ridiculous,,, Also how can Kavanaugh go first? what exactly are they going to question him on if she has given no evidence or even a concrete timeline or place where this supposedly happened..

I do not believe her one little bit.

This should of been ignored as there is NO EVIDENCE.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
a reply to: carewemust

What is she afraid of exactly, that she deems these demands necessary? I can understand the security issue, but everything else- I would love to see it articulated exactly what is her fear behind each of her requests. That would be interesting and enlightening. Not saying there isn't necessarily legitimate cause for each one, but I would like to know the why behind each one.

Considering one of the original accommodations offered to her was for the Senate to send staffers to her to collect her testimony, I don't think she gets to make these demands. Half of them would have been met by simply meeting off-site, in private with Senate staffers.

a reply to: CynConcepts

bingo - we has a winner