When you really love the surveillance state. Although I'll grant that the Tracey-Waters thing was funny as hell.
Fuck Glenn Greenwald. Fuck Michael Tracey. Fuck the Intercept. Phony opposition, all of them. From defending Snowden and Assange to discrediting the Mueller investigation to phony assault allegation against Maxine Waters (?!?!) to allegedly financing Bogachev, they can all go get fucked. Anybody who listens to them is a moron. Their whole existence is one big IW op.
I give exactly zero shits about "the surveillance state" bogeyman you are apparently shitting your pants about for some dumbfuck cowardly reason. I *do* care about turning over highly classified state secrets to our enemies, so Snowden and Assange can both get the fucking needle, and for all I care so can Greenwald if the evidence he financed Bogachev stands up to scrutiny. Maybe try being on Team USA for once instead of falling for this obvious ploy to divide opposition against TOC.When you really love the surveillance state. Although I'll grant that the Tracey-Waters thing was funny as hell.
I give exactly zero shits about "the surveillance state" bogeyman you are apparently shitting your pants about for some dumbfuck cowardly reason. I *do* care about turning over highly classified state secrets to our enemies, so Snowden and Assange can both get the fucking needle, and for all I care so can Greenwald if the evidence he financed Bogachev stands up to scrutiny. Maybe try being on Team USA for once instead of falling for this obvious ploy to divide opposition against TOC.
The justice system doesn’t work for sex crimes against women, but that doesn’t mean Twitter mob justice is the right answer either. Woke people are part of the problem. @1prophet is good at calling out political tribalism for what it is.Obviously why you "like" 1prophets post, because you're so woke.
"Unproven as it is, ............... (rings true)" leftie journalists for you.Please.
We Spent 10 Months Investigating Kavanaugh. Here’s What We Found.
Two journalists detail the results of their reporting on the Supreme Court justice’s past.www.theatlantic.com
"Unproven as it is, ............... (rings true)" leftie journalists for you.
"None of that means that Ford was, in fact, assaulted by Kavanaugh. "
"Other leads we pursued neither indicted nor exonerated Kavanaugh. "
Yes, there was never any proof he committed any crime, but they hate him because they're leftie journalistas and he's a conservative Judge. Thanks for the article, what a fucking load of prejudiced crap it was. Their feelies are he's a bad man, but they have no proof or evidence.
List it or it doesn't exist, and we all know it doesn't exist.But there was plenty of EVIDENCE .. you alt right critter you.
We all? How many voices do you have in your head? The evidence you request have been posted to you many times, there is no sense in repeating it so you can not read it again or not understand it again. I have asked you this before, is English your native tongue? Its not mine, yet somehow........List it or it doesn't exist, and we all know it doesn't exist.
That is not an accurate summary of her testimony (sworn in right?), and either way you put it, her testimony is evidence.Again the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh by Ford is :
She didn't know when it happened (he can't prove he wasn't there if she gives no date)
She didn't know where it happened (again he can't prove he wasn't there if she gives no location)
She claimed he pulled at her clothes (creepy Joe penetrated his victim digitally)
She didn't know how she got there (no proof he can contest)
She didn't know how she got home ( no other witnesses)
The people she claimed knew about it refuted her story. (her claimed witnesses deny her story)
Compare that to the accusations against a serial sexual predator like creepy Joe Biden. Have you ever seen the video footage of Sen. Coons daughter while being fondled by creepy Joe ? It's enough to turn your stomach
God damn. Yea. God damn.
This is an example about how you being incredibly deceptive at minimum. Leland Keyser said at the time of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing that she didn't remember the specific party but she believed Christine Ford. (A highly plausible situation given the amount of time that elapsed since the incident and given Ford never claimed to have said anything specific to Keyser about what had happened to her at the party.) Much more recently she gave an interview where she expressed uncertainty on what might of happened, but she never claimed anything along the lines that she is definitively refuting Ford's story.The people she claimed knew about it refuted her story. (her claimed witnesses deny her story)
Sorry dude he will never read past the first two lines. But yea. She did nothing but come off as a standup quality person, patriot at hearth, driven to do the right thing. But that is just it. These dark souls dont see that, they just see a cvnt trying to play an angle. Psychopaths the lot of them.This is an example about how you being incredibly deceptive at minimum. Leland Keyser said at the time of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing that she didn't remember the specific party but she believed Christine Ford. (A highly plausible situation given the amount of time that elapsed since the incident and given Ford never claimed to have said anything specific to Keyser about what had happened to her at the party.) Much more recently she gave an interview where she expressed uncertainty on what might of happened, but she never claimed anything along the lines that she is definitively refuting Ford's story.
The only other witness (which Ford presumably never thought would be likely to back her up) was Mark Judge who was Kavanaugh's friend at the time and merely said he did not remember the incident. Besides the obvious possibility just lied to protect a friend, with Mark Judge's known drinking habits at the time its possible he was telling the truth in the sense he didn't remember the incident since he got so blackout drunk that night among others. Of course the last excuse meant there was little risk in Judge lying to Congress and claiming he didn't remember the incident even if the truth was otherwise. In other words you can not accurately assert that Judge actually denied her story.
As noted Ford did in fact give her testimony under oath before Congress.
Of course a basic detail in the case of Ford is if you look at the timeline, there is clear evidence she specifically sought to bring up her story (in admittedly a more discrete way) prior to when Kavanaugh has been named as the nominee and was merely reported as being one of the names under consideration by the Trump administration. That would be consistent with an action (especially as taken) which was designed to persuade the Trump administration to go with another candidate as the nominee instead without her being exposed to a spectacle by being highly public with her accusation. This means the Republican claim she brought it up simply prevent a Republican Supreme Court Justice being nominated never made much sense. She could theoretically have another motivation to sink his nomination specifically (although its not obvious what that would be if her story was not accurate) but the way Republicans tried to claim her accusation was purely partisan was always obviously problematic.
By contrast, in this case we has an accusation where the accuser has fairly dramatically publicly changed her story among other problems with the accusation.
Yet you fail to list any evidence at all about Justice Kavanaugh. Which is and will always be the case.We all? How many voices do you have in your head? The evidence you request have been posted to you many times, there is no sense in repeating it so you can not read it again or not understand it again. I have asked you this before, is English your native tongue? Its not mine, yet somehow........
Yet you fail to list any evidence at all about Justice Kavanaugh. Which is and will always be the case.
What i claimed is completely accurate. If you can find anyone that backed up Ford's story other than the empty caveat "derp i believe her" let us know.This is an example about how you being incredibly deceptive at minimum. Leland Keyser said at the time of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing that she didn't remember the specific party but she believed Christine Ford. (A highly plausible situation given the amount of time that elapsed since the incident and given Ford never claimed to have said anything specific to Keyser about what had happened to her at the party.) Much more recently she gave an interview where she expressed uncertainty on what might of happened, but she never claimed anything along the lines that she is definitively refuting Ford's story.
The only other witness (which Ford presumably never thought would be likely to back her up) was Mark Judge who was Kavanaugh's friend at the time and merely said he did not remember the incident. Besides the obvious possibility he just lied to protect a friend, with Mark Judge's known drinking habits at the time its possible he was telling the truth in the sense he didn't remember the incident since he got so blackout drunk that night among others. Of course the last excuse meant there was little risk in Judge lying to Congress and claiming he didn't remember the incident even if the truth was otherwise. In other words you can not accurately assert that Judge actually denied her story.
As noted Ford did in fact give her testimony under oath before Congress.
Of course a basic detail in the case of Ford is if you look at the timeline, there is clear evidence she specifically sought to bring up her story (in admittedly a more discrete way) prior to when Kavanaugh has been named as the nominee and was merely reported as being one of the names under consideration by the Trump administration. That would be consistent with an action (especially as taken) which was designed to persuade the Trump administration to go with another candidate as the nominee instead without her being exposed to a spectacle by being highly public with her accusation. This means the Republican claim she brought it up simply prevent a Republican Supreme Court Justice being nominated never made much sense. She could theoretically have another motivation to sink his nomination specifically (although its not obvious what that would be if her story was not accurate) but the way Republicans tried to claim her accusation was purely partisan was always obviously problematic.
By contrast, in this case we has an accusation where the accuser has fairly dramatically publicly changed her story among other problems with the accusation.
In other words you lied because the witnesses did not refute Ford's story.What i claimed is completely accurate. If you can find anyone that backed up Ford's story other than the empty caveat "derp i believe her" let us know.
Oh no! Not our state secrets!
LMAO, I'd never be on your team you revolting shit pile.
Your ilk were the ones who claimed that women accusers are not credible. You don't get to go back on that now.What i claimed is completely accurate. If you can find anyone that backed up Ford's story other than the empty caveat "derp i believe her" let us know.
1. Bullshit, they did refute her in fact when they said they have no memory of it occuring and/or her telling them about it.In other words you lied because the witnesses did not refute Ford's story.
We in fact do have additional witnesses who can back her, including someone she told in 2013 that "she had been almost raped by someone who was now a federal judge. She told me she had been trapped in a room with two drunken guys, and that she then escaped, ran away, and hid."
Christine Blasey Ford’s Husband, Friends Break Their Silence
Brett Kavanaugh’s first accuser spoke of a high-school incident, anger at Brock Turner case at Stanford, according to four sworn affidavits given to the Senate Judiciary Committee.www.thedailybeast.com
You also have another friend who was told "Koegler wrote that Ford first told him of the alleged assault after Stanford University student Brock Turner was sentenced for raping an unconscious woman on the nearby Palo Alto school’s campus.
“Christine expressed anger at Mr. Turner’s lenient sentence, stating that she was particularly bothered by it because she was assaulted in high school by a man who was now a federal judge in Washington, D.C.,” Koegler wrote, adding that Ford did not name her assailant until June of this year, after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his resignation from the Supreme Court."
Christine Blasey Ford’s Husband, Friends Break Their Silence
Brett Kavanaugh’s first accuser spoke of a high-school incident, anger at Brock Turner case at Stanford, according to four sworn affidavits given to the Senate Judiciary Committee.www.thedailybeast.com
You also have a therapist she talked about the incident to in a session 2012 specifically keep contemporary notes at the time which among other things "say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.”
Now it is true these other witnesses she told her story to her earlier are not ideal because she did not specifically say Kavanaugh's name at the time, but the combination of the descriptions means almost no-one else would plausibly match what she had previously said.
In other words we have allot of evidence she was talking about this to select people for years well before Kavanaugh became a Supreme Court nominee, which is a key reason the accusation was so creditable and should have been treated that way.
Bullshit, you're the one saying it about Tara Reade, fess up to it.Your ilk were the ones who claimed that women accusers are not credible. You don't get to go back on that now.
You are simply lying about this since again it makes 100% sense that especially one of them would have no memory of the event, and Ford never claimed to have told the other witnesses about what happened. In the case of Mark Judge she had no reason to talk to him about the event since he was there to see it according to her testimony, and the blackout drunk point on Mark Judge has also already been covered on top of the reason he had potential motivation to intentionally lie. Their testimony simply did not actually refute what Ford claimed.1. Bullshit, they did refute her in fact when they said they have no memory of it occuring and/or her telling them about it.
Who else could it possibly be? We're talking about someone who was a federal judge by 2012, went to an elite boys school, and by the same period was a "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington." Mark Judge incidentally fits as someone else who went to that same school and could have been considered by some part of that group of members of society in Washington by 2012, which further fits with Ford's public claim.2. Absolutely no mention of his name.
Of course the legal requirement for a conviction for jaywalking is actually ordinarily the same for any other crime that could theoretically reach a jury. She did not refuse to specify any of those things, she simply asserted she could not remember them. Ideally of course she would remember everything perfect even after so long ago, but again who she told in the past about the incident is actually the sort of thing which has been used to successfully obtain rape convictions in the past in terms of evidence. Of course an underlying point is the standard to use evidence of past behavior to block a nomination to something like the Supreme Court is lower than an actual criminal conviction.3.She refused to say when/where it happened so he had no way to defend himself against the claims. I've served on juries and wouldn't find a jaywalker guilty of a crime with the lack of evidence.
You're simply acting preposterously and showing how far you are willing to sink with your partisanship. Among other things, unlike all the facts supporting Ford's story, Tara Reade dramatically changed her story publicly from simply claiming Biden touched her inappropriately to some degree and that was it, to suddenly now claiming a digital penetration. There are clear reasons to take one story far more seriously than the other one. You owe me and others on this forum an apology for your false accusation against us.I would however find creepy Uncle Joe Biden guilty of sexual assault with the claims made by Tara Reade in which she was very specific on where and how it happened, what he said and did and who she told about it when it happened. Cover up for him if you choose, but don't take a holier than thou/self righteous/sanctimonious attitude about your covering for a serial sexual predator.
I haven't said anything about anyone. I'm just pointing out that you've already said she isn't credible.Bullshit, you're the one saying it about Tara Reade, fess up to it.