2 men say it was they who assaulted Ford

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Originally Posted by Originalist

You're so pathetic. The guy who supposedly was with Kavanaugh is considered a co-assaulter. It's the same with the two men admitting guilt now. Go somewhere else with your garbage. You don't even believe your own propaganda.

Where should I go and with what garbage?

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm a skeptic by default. I don't care the verbal accusation, I want proof. I want evidence. I want witnesses to the alleged assault. She has none.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Originalist

https://nypost.com/2018/09/27/two-me...ssaulted-ford/

But that won't matter to the Marxist mad-dogs.

IIRC one of the GOP Senators on the Committee spoke with both men and doesn't believe their claims. Says one was a complete loon.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Those claims, too, are a matter of dispute. On Thursday morning, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told “Fox & Friends” that one of those individuals is “crazy as a loon … the one that I’ve heard about, I think, is not reliable.” He did not name the individual, and the committee would not release further details about either person when reached for comment by Fox News. Another source, though, said “there’s no reason to doubt they’re both of sound mind and are both sincere in their claims.”


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...kavanaugh.html

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Originally Posted by Originalist

You're so pathetic. The guy who supposedly was with Kavanaugh is considered a co-assaulter. It's the same with the two men admitting guilt now. Go somewhere else with your garbage. You don't even believe your own propaganda.

Actually nothing you have said above has any merit.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeBukaroo

Actually nothing you have said above has any merit.

Actually, nothing you say ever has merit. Scram troll.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by n david

People are talking about her tone of voice and demeanor and using those to gauge her credibility, especially in her opening statement. I don't read much into that. Those things can be and have been coached for witnesses appearing before Congress.

I'm a skeptic by default. I don't care the verbal accusation, I want proof. I want evidence. I want witnesses to the alleged assault. She has none.

Instead the Committee has to take her at her word.

She's already had to clarify and walk back several things previously stated in interviews or her written statements.

She claimed she terrified of flying, yet admits that she flies a lot. A lot. And not just in the continental states, but to Hawaii and some other pacific islands as well.
She claimed she didn't want to go to the media, but says she gave an interview to the WaPo.
She claimed she wanted the Committee to go to California but they refused. That was an outright lie. Only after Grassley objected and stated that the Committee actually offered and would have gone to California to meet with her, did she admit the offer was given and claim she was "confused" about it.

The polygraph test is something else which causes questions.
She claims she didn't have an attorney at the time, yet when asked a question by Mr. Mitchell, her attorney objected due to privileged information. How, if she had no attorney then?

She didn't pay for the polygraph, and doesn't know who did?

The polygraph itself is ridiculously simple, having only two questions asked.

“Is any part of your statement false?” She answered, “No.”
“Did you make up any part of your statement?” She again answered, “No.”

A couple Democrats kept referring to it as though it was definitive proof. Absurd! There were no questions asked during the test about the alleged incident, especially not of the alleged assault itself. It's not assuming much to believe there was good reason to not ask those questions. It was a friendly polygraph set up by her people and they wanted to make sure it only showed answers as honest.

GOP majority should offer a compromise. They'll demand an FBI investigation if she'll consent to a new and more detailed polygraph exam which includes questions about the alleged assault.

It would not matter if Trump had nominated a 75 year old afro-American grandmother who had been married to the same man for 50 years. The Dems would pull no punches to destroy her, too.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

People are talking about her tone of voice and demeanor and using those to gauge her credibility, especially in her opening statement. I don't read much into that. Those things can be and have been coached for witnesses appearing before Congress.

I'm a skeptic by default. I don't care the verbal accusation, I want proof. I want evidence. I want witnesses to the alleged assault. She has none.

Instead the Committee has to take her at her word.

She's already had to clarify and walk back several things previously stated in interviews or her written statements.

She claimed she terrified of flying, yet admits that she flies a lot. A lot. And not just in the continental states, but to Hawaii and some other pacific islands as well.
She claimed she didn't want to go to the media, but says she gave an interview to the WaPo.
She claimed she wanted the Committee to go to California but they refused. That was an outright lie. Only after Grassley objected and stated that the Committee actually offered and would have gone to California to meet with her, did she admit the offer was given and claim she was "confused" about it.

The polygraph test is something else which causes questions.
She claims she didn't have an attorney at the time, yet when asked a question by Mr. Mitchell, her attorney objected due to privileged information. How, if she had no attorney then?

She didn't pay for the polygraph, and doesn't know who did?

The polygraph itself is ridiculously simple, having only two questions asked.

“Is any part of your statement false?” She answered, “No.”
“Did you make up any part of your statement?” She again answered, “No.”

A couple Democrats kept referring to it as though it was definitive proof. Absurd! There were no questions asked during the test about the alleged incident, especially not of the alleged assault itself. It's not assuming much to believe there was good reason to not ask those questions. It was a friendly polygraph set up by her people and they wanted to make sure it only showed answers as honest.

GOP majority should offer a compromise. They'll demand an FBI investigation if she'll consent to a new and more detailed polygraph exam which includes questions about the alleged assault.

I think that's fair.

There is no "proof" that this happened.

I'd like to add that polygraph tests are not considered to be 100% accurate.

While I'm no fan of Trump, I think this has become a circus.

I say that she should present some form of evidence, and if she can't, throw it all out.

I'm not saying that behavior like this is acceptable. But I firmly believe that women should come forward immediately after being assaulted, not wait decades, or until it is politically relevant to bring up accusations. She waited decades. If this did happen to her, my heart goes out to her. However, she's waited far too long and without any evidence. It is what it is. If we give her accusation more weight than it's worth, all kinds of phony, baseless, accusations will pour forth against every politician and appointment from here on out.

[n david]

I'd like to know what Ms. Mitchell's opinion is. It's been her career, after all, to meet and speak with victims; to listen to their accusations and to either refer the matter for prosecution or dismiss it.

Has anyone read what her role is, besides standing in for the GOP to ask questions? Will she be testifying or submitting a report as to her opinion or recommendations?

[Originalist]

It is obvious Kavanaugh is telling the truth. Sadly, Lisa Murkowski is a RINO who sole the last election in Alaska. I do not expect her to vote for him.