Do you all Believe the woman who is accusing Va. Lt. Governor?

[piezoe]

not corroborated by her witnesses

Nor were they shown to be incorrect by her witnesses. Why didn't Brett's, ah "Barts", alcoholic buddy who was with him while he was sexually assaulting Ford, agree to testify under oath.* It would have been so easy to say "This did not happen." "Or, I wasn't there." Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it? Especially when Ford's account dovetails perfectly with "Barts" weekend behavior in both high school and college as testified to by a seemingly endless stream of eye witnesses, and a written account by Brett's non-testifying "Best Friend" and Brett's, ah "Bart's" own written account of the activities planned for the weekend.

But I don't care about this personally, what makes him unqualified is his demeanor and lying under oath as an adult .

See also post#70 above. There is no statutory limit on Rape, I think Kavenaugh should be tried and let the Jury decide who is telling the Truth.
____*I don't find his lawyer's statement, nor his own with a notary stamp on it very convincing. He needs to show up at the Kavenaugh Trial and be cross examined while under oath.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

[QUOTE="piezoe, post: 4805236, member: 45984" Why didn't Brett's, ah "Barts", buddy who was with him while he was sexually assaulting Ford, agree to testify. It would have been so easy to say "This did not happen." "Or, I wasn't there." .[/QUOTE]

Who are you referring to here?

 

[gwb-trading]

See also post#70 above. There is no statutory limit on Rape, I think Kavenaugh should be tried and let the Jury decide who is telling the Truth.

I think Ford should be put on trial for fabricating assertions for a political smear. Let the jury decide who is telling the Truth.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I think Ford should be put on trial for fabricating assertions for a political smear. Let the jury decide who is telling the Truth.

If not Ford then at least the other two. One of them, cant remember her name, flat out recanted and told the FBI she made it up because "she was angry about Trump." The other, Swetnick, has plead the fifth and not recanted but has gone silent- she was the rape line fabricator. Grassley has referred her to the FBI for investigation/prosecution. Funny how the lefties conveniently forget about those two.

Probably they will never be prosecuted but you dont know until you get Sessions out and someone new in. IN PROGRESS.

 

[piezoe]

then explain it away

ah, "she wasn't upstairs," would that do? That's what Kavenaugh said. And she also said she didn't think her friend Keyser would remember the party. One of many parties every weekend all summer. Do you recall your specific weekends when you were a teenager when nothing in particular happened, as far as you were aware? Gee I hope so.

 

[piezoe]

I think Ford should be put on trial for fabricating assertions for a political smear. Let the jury decide who is telling the Truth.

certainly, all you have to do is convince a court in either case, that there is sufficient evidence of law breaking to proceed. Should be an easy barrier to hurdle.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

certainly, all you have to do is convince a court in either case, that there is sufficient evidence of law breaking to proceed. Should be an easy barrier to hurdle.

Who are you referring to a couple posts above when you talk about the friend?

 

[piezoe]

If not Ford then at least the other two. One of them, cant remember her name, flat out recanted and told the FBI she made it up because "she was angry about Trump." The other, Swetnick, has plead the fifth and not recanted but has gone silent- she was the rape line fabricator. Grassley has referred her to the FBI for investigation/prosecution. Funny how the lefties conveniently forget about those two.

Probably they will never be prosecuted but you dont know until you get Sessions out and someone new in. IN PROGRESS.

These Swetnick types seem to be attracted to these high profile cases like flys to honey. maybe when Bezos gets through with the National Enquirer we will discover that there is a Pecker involved.

 

[piezoe]

[QUOTE="piezoe, post: 4805236, member: 45984" Why didn't Brett's, ah "Barts", buddy who was with him while he was sexually assaulting Ford, agree to testify. It would have been so easy to say "This did not happen." "Or, I wasn't there." .

Who are you referring to here?[/QUOTE]
I am referring to the fact that he (Mark Judge) hid out when the committee tried to get him to come in and testify under oath. Instead sent first a statement written by his lawyer, then when that wasn't satisfactory to the committee he submitted a statement stamped by a notary attesting to the fact that his drivers license, or whatever, said he was who he said he was.

You pledge that you are telling the truth, but lordy, to use a James Comeyism, that's a far cry from live testimony under oath followed by cross examination!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe in his case it wasn't testimony at all, maybe it was really "testimoney".

It's now a lot clearer, ever since the Bezos thingy. You've got Boss Trump, you've got lacky Pecker, you've got lacky Cohen, you've got people on call that will show up in a parking lot, and you've got a scared as shit alcoholic author of a book that spilled the beans, beans no one ever thought would end up at Supreme Court nominee hearing. The Boss wants lacky Kavenaugh on that bench, and he'll do anything to see that he makes it through the confirmation hearing. (I sound like jem, don't I. I learned all my best conspiracy shit from jem! )

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Okay. third time.

What is the name of the person you are referring to?