When did this new standard occur

[Truth Detector]

You have a mental health problem.

Irony from an idiot who posted that victims accounts are evidence. You're insane.

[TOP]

Seems like there's plenty to investigate: sexual assault and a cover-up.

You're the ones who are arbitrarily saying there's nothing to investigate while simultaneously saying that Ford should testify about the incident.

No one is fooled by your posturing, by the way.

I see right through it.




She presented facts. She recounted what happened to her, and who was there while it happened.

Of course, the only way to get to the bottom of it is to do an investigation.

But you all don't want to do that, and it's pretty obvious why.

...all she has to do is testify....Why not Monday? or any of the multiple options she's been offered? she's silent, now, isn't she?

[LV426]

...all she has to do is testify

Without an investigation, how exactly will you be able to prove or disprove the allegations based purely on this testimony?

[LV426]

Why not Monday?

What is the point of a hearing if there's no investigation?

You're not seriously telling me that this testimony alone will be able to prove or disprove the allegations?

[LV426]

or any of the multiple options she's been offered?

You mean the offers of "sit before us and let us pepper you with questions instead of having the FBI do an investigation"?

Yeah, I can see her reluctance to accept such shitty terms.

Would you?

she's silent, now, isn't she?

No, she's called for an investigation. You're the ones who can make that happen. You're choosing not to investigate and it's pretty obvious why.

[TOP]

Without an investigation, how exactly will you be able to prove or disprove the allegations based purely on this testimony?

There's no "evidence"...there's nothing to investigate....
Her allegations are just that..nothing else....*What did she expect?

[LV426]

There's no "evidence"...there's nothing to investigate...

I don't know why you keep saying this, because her first hand account is evidence.

There's also a witness who she identified, Mark Judge, that was there in the room with them.

So that's a witness who can provide evidence in a investigation, and he refuses to testify. Why is that?

There's also the notes her therapist took back in 2012. That's evidence too.

Doesn't seem to me like you really know what you're talking about.

[TOP]

You mean the offers of "sit before us and let us pepper you with questions instead of having the FBI do an investigation"?

Yeah, I can see her reluctance to accept such shitty terms.

Would you?




No, she's called for an investigation. You're the ones who can make that happen. You're choosing not to investigate and it's pretty obvious why.

There were plenty of other options offered to her. Did you miss those? There's no reason to investigate. If there were, it would have happened when she presented the information in July.... You can bet on that....
'

[LV426]

*What did she expect?

This is why November is going to be a bloodbath.

This abuser pathology that you apply only to women while you don't seem to apply it to the victims of sexual assault by Priests...why is that, anyway? How come you'll believe a victim of assault by a Catholic priest, but not the victim of assault by a rich, entitled white kid?

I think you and I both know the answer to that question.

[Mason Michaels]

who controlled the Senate in 1991, and suggested an FBI investigation? Hint it wasn't the Republicans.

Sorry but,last night on the news they had Orrin Hatch and the Republicans who is head of the committee now,on video from 1991 asking for FBI investigation.
Dawn is great for taking egg off your face.

[LV426]

There were plenty of other options offered to her.

No there weren't.

None of the offers included an investigation.

You're never going to be able to determine the truth based on the testimony of two people without some kind of an investigation.

Your reluctance to have an investigation belies the intent; you know Bretty would end up lying to the FBI just like all the other Conservatives have the last couple years.

You're pretty transparent.

[Mason Michaels]

It's just an unproven story right now....unless she testifies and has some proof.

That's why you investigate,if its a lie.Charger her with a crime.

[Mason Michaels]

but it's not. They could have presented this *"story" months ago...they did not and now she won't talk. Her classmate "witness" has withdrawn her statements...which she said she made only because they "empowered" her...kind of the flavor of the whole smear....

He wasn't nominated months ago.Moron

[TOP]

This is why November is going to be a bloodbath.

This abuser pathology that you apply only to women while you don't seem to apply it to the victims of sexual assault by Priests...why is that, anyway? How come you'll believe a victim of assault by a Catholic priest, but not the victim of assault by a rich, entitled white kid?

I think you and I both know the answer to that question.

Now you're just rambling...this isn't about priests....something I've never commented on....
KEEP TRYING, THOUGH....

[LV426]

There's no reason to investigate.

Yes, there is.

There are multiple.

The first reason being that lying to the FBI carries mandatory prison time.

The second reason is because you're not going to be able to find out the truth based on a couple hours of testimony from just two people.

All of those "offers" are bad faith. You push those bad faith narratives because of your poor character. Simply put, you don't know how to act in good faith. Period. So why the hell should you be accommodated?