Why I don’t believe Fords story

TOP said:
There won't be an FBI investigation into her fantasy..no need=what's to investigate? she can't remember anything...this is all hers to prove....
On Monday....
Click to expand...
Fantasy? She remembers she was assaulted. She told others about the assault. People like you are the reason women don’t come forward with their stories.
 
Teflon Don said:
Here is why I don’t believe her

1) She claims she didn’t want this to come out yet SHE reached out to a democrat AND the Washington Post. Nobody who wants to stay anonymous does that

2) She claims she wants to be anonymous yet in August she hires a lawyer. Why? If she never planned on it going public why did she hire a lawyer?

3) She claims she wanted to be anonymous and not go public yet she supposedly took a lie detector test. Why? Who does that?


And who is paying her legal fees?

All questions I hope she will be asked on Monday

Also, this gambit of her erasing her online profile is likely to blow up on her. Rest assured that people are looking right now and when they find derogatory posts of hers going back 8 years. She is sunk

The burden of proof is on her
Click to expand...

I don't see why you'd picture any of that going against the idea she initially wanted to keep anonymous. Assuming for a moment that what she said happened actually happened, try to picture it from her perspective. She was trying to have it both ways -- she didn't want to see a man she knew to have been a violent sexual predator being put into a lifetime position of great power over women..... but she also didn't want to have a terrible trauma from her youth become the defining thing everybody thought of upon meeting her. She didn't want a complex and highly accomplished lifetime to get reduced in people's minds to a one-dimensional character, such that when people thought of her they always thought immediately of the allegations.... the same as happened with Anita Hill. And she sure didn't want to be the target of the inevitable conservative smear campaign -- the "Real Anita Hill" style character assassination books, the dredging up of every allegation against her, the grilling of her friends, family, coworkers, students, acquaintances, etc., looking for dirt to use against her. So, she tried to have it both ways, while also taking steps to respond if her name did end up getting leaked. After all, if the event really did happen, that would mean Kavanaugh would know exactly who this anonymous woman was, and would be in a position to get her name out there if he thought doing so would help.

So, I don't see any of that as either hurting or helping her credibility. As for the question of where the burden of proof lies -- this isn't a criminal trial, or even a civil one. It's a political process. There are no formal rules about where the burden of proof lies. It is, in effect, more like a job interview. If you were interviewing someone for a position at your company, and were checking his references and wound up speaking with a former acquaintance of his, who warned you not to hire him because he did something terrible, how would you react? Would you demand she prove it beyond a reasonable doubt before factoring it in? Would you take it on board but give it minimal weight unless there were more accompanying evidence? Or would you disregard it completely?

I've been part of a hiring process, before, and heard a couple of former coworkers of job applicants speak negatively of them. Fair or not, I've got to admit I take it on board and give it some weight, even if all I have is a personal testimonial. There are lots of great candidates out there who'd like the job, and so if I've got a red flag waving on one of them, even if it's a pretty uncertain red flag, I might well pass on to the next option.
 
jimmymccready said:
We will see. It makes sense she wants an FBI investigation before testifying. That pins everyone down to the truth.

Why does SadPimp and the rest not want all the truth?
Click to expand...
bwahaha

that makes sense to you. This is a he said/she said. Her testimony is the investigtation
 
Phantasmal said:
Fantasy? She remembers she was assaulted. She told others about the assault. People like you are the reason women don’t come forward with their stories.
Click to expand...
I'm sure she was assaulted at one time...and I'm sure she told a "story". To others...
Now, we'd all like to hear her tell the Real truth. and she's not interested in doing that any more....She's not told it yet....or she'd be there on Monday....
* I've encouraged many girls and women to come forward with their stories...and reports, over the years. But they have to be truthful....and often, they are not....
*
"people like you"....lol
 
Grumpy said:
How many times have you party of the Ass tried this same bull and how many times has it worked? The more this shit is in the news the more people see how desperate the left is. We'll see who is right in Nov.
Click to expand...
What 'same bull and how many times' are you referring to. Your post reeks of desperation.
 
jimmymccready said:
We will see. It makes sense she wants an FBI investigation before testifying. That pins everyone down to the truth.

Why does SadPimp and the rest not want all the truth?
Click to expand...

Since when does the FBI investigate an alleged incident that happened in HS, over 40 years ago.

Especially when there's no prof, no Police report, and her "witness" has said it never happened. :palm:
 
Grumpy said:
How many times have you party of the Ass tried this same bull and how many times has it worked? The more this shit is in the news the more people see how desperate the left is. We'll see who is right in Nov.
Click to expand...

They're emboldened; because an "accusation" resulted in Moore not being elected and now it appears that they're hoping it will work again.

So sad
Too bad
 
TOP said:
I'm sure she was assaulted at one time...and I'm sure she told a "story". To others...
Now, we'd all like to hear her tell the Real truth. and she's not interested in doing that any more....She's not told it yet....or she'd be there on Monday....
* I've encouraged many girls and women to come forward with their stories...and reports, over the years. But they have to be truthful....and often, they are not....
*
"people like you"....lol
Click to expand...
Real truth? The real truth is her story, I’m not sure what you mean by Real truth? She passed a polygraph.
 
Oneuli said:
I don't see why you'd picture any of that going against the idea she initially wanted to keep anonymous. Assuming for a moment that what she said happened actually happened, try to picture it from her perspective. She was trying to have it both ways -- she didn't want to see a man she knew to have been a violent sexual predator being put into a lifetime position of great power over women..... but she also didn't want to have a terrible trauma from her youth become the defining thing everybody thought of upon meeting her. She didn't want a complex and highly accomplished lifetime to get reduced in people's minds to a one-dimensional character, such that when people thought of her they always thought immediately of the allegations.... the same as happened with Anita Hill. And she sure didn't want to be the target of the inevitable conservative smear campaign -- the "Real Anita Hill" style character assassination books, the dredging up of every allegation against her, the grilling of her friends, family, coworkers, students, acquaintances, etc., looking for dirt to use against her. So, she tried to have it both ways, while also taking steps to respond if her name did end up getting leaked. After all, if the event really did happen, that would mean Kavanaugh would know exactly who this anonymous woman was, and would be in a position to get her name out there if he thought doing so would help.

So, I don't see any of that as either hurting or helping her credibility. As for the question of where the burden of proof lies -- this isn't a criminal trial, or even a civil one. It's a political process. There are no formal rules about where the burden of proof lies. It is, in effect, more like a job interview. If you were interviewing someone for a position at your company, and were checking his references and wound up speaking with a former acquaintance of his, who warned you not to hire him because he did something terrible, how would you react? Would you demand she prove it beyond a reasonable doubt before factoring it in? Would you take it on board but give it minimal weight unless there were more accompanying evidence? Or would you disregard it completely?

I've been part of a hiring process, before, and heard a couple of former coworkers of job applicants speak negatively of them. Fair or not, I've got to admit I take it on board and give it some weight, even if all I have is a personal testimonial. There are lots of great candidates out there who'd like the job, and so if I've got a red flag waving on one of them, even if it's a pretty uncertain red flag, I might well pass on to the next option.
Click to expand...

One wuld have to believe she knew Bart O'Kavanaugh would be up for this position back in 2012, in that therapy session.
 
TOP said:
There won't be an FBI investigation into her fantasy..no need
Click to expand...

The FBI investigated Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill.

So the precedent already exists.

Why the rush to get Brettany on the bench? Because you want to protect Trump and the GOP from the inevitable conclusions of Mueller's investigation, right?
 
TOP said:
I'm sure she was assaulted at one time...and I'm sure she told a "story". To others...
Click to expand...

This is why Conservatives cannot win the female vote, and why they're doing everything they can to push through Brettany before the Senate switches back to Democrat, which is pretty likely now. So they're trying to rush this through, without doing proper due diligence, because they want to protect themselves from the inevitable conclusions of Mueller's investigation.

Have the FBI investigate just like they did with Thomas/Hill.

Then we can have a full, fair, truthful accounting of what happened.
 
LV426 said:
Well, prove how? The other witness in the room refuses to testify under oath to help his buddy. That should tell you everything you need to know.
Click to expand...

SOS, she must be smeared. And they knew this was coming; they already had that "65 women support Bart O'Kavanaugh" letter waiting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top