Ford lawyers say she is open to testifying, but not Monday

[USFREEDOM911]

Looks like Ford is dropping demands of an FBI investigation

BAZINGA


https://www.dailywire.com/news/36129...-ryan-saavedra

From the article:
if she is given "terms that are fair and which ensure her safety."


Which is nothing more the a desperate plea for them to believe her, with no evidence, and to not make her FEEL bad.

[CFM]

If she testifies, and comes across as a credible woman with a compelling story, it will be next to impossible to confirm Kavanaugh.

Her credibility doesn't exist.

I wouldn't worry about Kavanaugh. He'll be confirmed. You should worry about the old Jewish bitch giving up the ghost and Trump getting to appoint another one. That will be a 6-3 right leaning Court and nothing you left wing America haters believe will ever be considered again in your or your kid's lifetime.

[CFM]

You never need any evidence for the shyte you "know".

With the lack of credibility of that whore Ford, I have all I need.

[CFM]

What a fucking hack.

Kill yourself.




Her account is evidence you stupid motherfucker.

If this was an investigation, her account and statement would be submitted as a piece of evidence by a prosecutor. Even the old shits who watch Law & Order every day know that.

You're just a piece of white trash.

You're losing it you motherfucking, nigger loving piece of shit.

[USFREEDOM911]

what do you base that on? Do you believe guys who deny what happened with no evidence? of course you do.

I'm not the one who's basing all of this on my feels, like you and other liberals are.

I'm basing my conclusion on the FACT that there is no E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, which doesn't seem to matter to you or the liberals; because if it did, you and other liberals would be questioning the FACT that there is no evidence.

Would you be comfortable if you were accused of something, from over 30 years ago, and there was no evidence to support the accusation?

Would you just curl up, in a fetal position, and say: "Well; if she's accusing me, it must be true."??

[Nordberg]

I'm not the one who's basing all of this on my feels, like you and other liberals are.

I'm basing my conclusion on the FACT that there is no E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, which doesn't seem to matter to you or the liberals; because if it did, you and other liberals would be questioning the FACT that there is no evidence.

Would you be comfortable if you were accused of something, from over 30 years ago, and there was no evidence to support the accusation?

Would you just curl up, in a fetal position, and say: "Well; if she's accusing me, it must be true."??

yes you are. you are making conclusions where none is justified. I don't know what happened. Nor do you. But you have no problems suggesting she is not telling the truth. I have heard nothing from her, but you are not telling the truth. Making shit up and creating conclusions.

[USFREEDOM911]

yes you are. you are making conclusions where none is justified. I don't know what happened. Nor do you. But you have no problems suggesting she is not telling the truth. I have heard nothing from her, but you are not telling the truth. Making shit up and creating conclusions.

I've made up nothing and every one of my conclusions are based on what is or what is not available; because she's presented NOTHING except for an accusation.

But you and other liberals hate Trump so much, that you FEEL you have to believe her; no matter what facts there are or not.

Why are you suggesting she's telling the truth??

Present your facts and I'll look at them.

Would you be comfortable if you were accused of something, from over 30 years ago, and there was no evidence to support the accusation?

Would you just curl up, in a fetal position, and say: "Well; if she's accusing me, it must be true."

[Nordberg]

I've made up nothing and every one of my conclusions are based on what is or what is not available; because she's presented NOTHING except for an accusation.

But you and other liberals hate Trump so much, that you FEEL you have to believe her; no matter what facts there are or not.

Why are you suggesting she's telling the truth??

Present your facts and I'll look at them.

Would you be comfortable if you were accused of something, from over 30 years ago, and there was no evidence to support the accusation?

Would you just curl up, in a fetal position, and say: "Well; if she's accusing me, it must be true."

you do not know what is available as evidence. Nor do I. but you have no trouble claiming it does not exist. typical righty idea of fairness.
The Repubs know there are people who were around then that will testify about it. For some reason, the Repugs do not want to allow them to have their say. i guess you think that is in the interest of fairness and justice. Allowing all sides to speak is just so unfair.

[Nordberg]

you do not know what is available as evidence. Nor do I. but you have no trouble claiming it does not exist. typical righty idea of fairness.
The Repubs know there are people who were around then that will testify about it. For some reason, the Repugs do not want to allow them to have their say. i guess you think that is in the interest of fairness and justice. Allowing all sides to speak is just so unfair.

happened 30 years ago. What should they find "fingerprints'? Your repeating what evidence is inane. This distils down to witnesses and people who were told long ago. There are plenty of women who will back her. Repubs will not allow them to testify. her shrink said she told him 5 years ago. Not permitted to speak. All they will permit is the Repub senators, all men with their minds made up to question her. Now they are thinking about having an outside lawyer, A woman, ask their questions for them. that would fool you. She will be having a script and prescribed questions. What punks, hiding behind a woman.
The FBI investigates nominees are a regular part of their duties. they are the Federal Bureau of INVESTGATION after all. Repubs are blocking it.

[USFREEDOM911]

you do not know what is available as evidence. Nor do I. but you have no trouble claiming it does not exist. typical righty idea of fairness.
The Repubs know there are people who were around then that will testify about it. For some reason, the Repugs do not want to allow them to have their say. i guess you think that is in the interest of fairness and justice. Allowing all sides to speak is just so unfair.

You do not know what is available as evidence. Nor do I. but you have no trouble claiming it does exist. typical liberal idea of fairness.

The Democrats know there are people who were around then that will testify for Kavanaugh; for some reason, Democrats only want to listen to Ford's unsupported accusation.

I guess you think that is in the interest of fairness and justice. Only believing in Ford's side; is just so unfair.

[USFREEDOM911]

happened 30 years ago. What should they find "fingerprints'? Your repeating what evidence is inane. This distils down to witnesses and people who were told long ago. There are plenty of women who will back her. Repubs will not allow them to testify. her shrink said she told him 5 years ago. Not permitted to speak. All they will permit is the Repub senators, all men with their minds made up to question her. Now they are thinking about having an outside lawyer, A woman, ask their questions for them. that would fool you. She will be having a script and prescribed questions. What punks, hiding behind a woman.
The FBI investigates nominees are a regular part of their duties. they are the Federal Bureau of INVESTGATION after all. Repubs are blocking it.

Hearsay is not allowable and that's what you're pinning your dreams on.

[Frank Apisa]

you do not know what is available as evidence. Nor do I. but you have no trouble claiming it does not exist. typical righty idea of fairness.
The Repubs know there are people who were around then that will testify about it. For some reason, the Repugs do not want to allow them to have their say. i guess you think that is in the interest of fairness and justice. Allowing all sides to speak is just so unfair.

Bottom line right now is: One side is asking for an FBI investigation to find out if more can be found...and the other side is doing everything it can to prevent the FBI from investigating and finding more.

The charge was made by Ford who knew Kavanaugh...and knew Judge whom she identified as a witness and an enabler. One side wants Judge to testify and one side does not.

Which side is acting more like the party trying to hide something?

[canceled.2021.2]

I'm not the one who's basing all of this on my feels, like you and other liberals are.

I'm basing my conclusion on the FACT that there is no E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, which doesn't seem to matter to you or the liberals; because if it did, you and other liberals would be questioning the FACT that there is no evidence.

Would you be comfortable if you were accused of something, from over 30 years ago, and there was no evidence to support the accusation?

Would you just curl up, in a fetal position, and say: "Well; if she's accusing me, it must be true."??

That’s because no woman would ever wrongly accuse a man of rape. It has never ever ever happened

Women never ever lie about anything

[canceled.2021.2]

Let’s be clear about something

Ford testifying and the FBI investigating are mutually exclusive

One is not predicated on the other

[CFM]

From the article:
if she is given "terms that are fair and which ensure her safety."


Which is nothing more the a desperate plea for them to believe her, with no evidence, and to not make her FEEL bad.

Even those she said were there don't believe her.

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.” - Patrick J. Smyth, classmate of Brett Kavanaugh