I don't understand why they have to go all the way back to high school when they have highly controversial activities which are also illegal.


We've got fresh accusations of actions that took place within the past couple of years -- physically beating a woman.

Why aren't the Dems making an issue out of that?

(09-17-2018 05:35 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I don't understand why they have to go all the way back to high school when they have highly controversial activities which are also illegal.


We've got fresh accusations of actions that took place within the past couple of years -- physically beating a woman.

Why aren't the Dems making an issue out of that?

dems care more about rich white women....(isnt that how they play this game)

(09-17-2018 01:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 01:18 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 01:16 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  She passed a polygraph test. Perhaps tge good judge would also submit to one?

Link?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/hillreporte...r-7306/amp

So a drunken girl wants to claim he went to far 40 years after the high school events transpired. Sounds to me like they were all drunk and there wasnt much foul intent if they made zero attempt to stop her from leaving the room. Not condoning the behavior (its unaccpetable)---but 40 years ago, unfortunately, it would have been considered just bad drunken behavior. I doubt any DA would have taken the case. The nation has done a lot of growing up since then.

(09-17-2018 01:27 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 01:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 01:18 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 01:16 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  She passed a polygraph test. Perhaps tge good judge would also submit to one?

Link?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/hillreporte...r-7306/amp

All that does is confirm that she believes her memory. It doesn't suggest that her memory is accurate. There's a reason polygraphs aren't admissible in court.

Indeed. As an example, Mensa would pass a polygraph asking him if he's brilliant.

What if was someone else at that party and she is confused. She doesn't even know where she was. I remember every house party I went to in high school and I'm about the same age and no one tried to assault me. I'm pretty sure I would remember where a traumatic event occurred.

(09-17-2018 08:47 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  What if was someone else at that party and she is confused. She doesn't even know where she was. I remember every house party I went to in high school and I'm about the same age and no one tried to assault me. I'm pretty sure I would remember where a traumatic event occurred.

Too much detail and you could be proven wrong like that one at UVA.

(09-17-2018 01:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 01:45 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 01:43 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If she’s lying, then why include someone in the lie who would obviously disagree?

Because................................. they are a liar?

If it was a tactical lie, it benefit her to keep it a he said/ she said and not put his buddy in the room.

She told her shrink there were four people in the room. So which is it?

(09-17-2018 01:48 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 01:45 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Just heard on Shapiro that she passed a polygraph affirming that her statement was accurate, not that the allegation was true.

Ridiculous.

And there’s a credible source

A pathological liar or just some one who is mentally ill can pass lie detector tests. They truly believe they are telling the truth. She has to many reasons to be lying and absolutely no reason to be telling the truth.

(09-17-2018 08:47 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  What if was someone else at that party and she is confused. She doesn't even know where she was. I remember every house party I went to in high school and I'm about the same age and no one tried to assault me. I'm pretty sure I would remember where a traumatic event occurred.

Ford's inability to give the year much less the month is part of what undermines her story's credibility for me.

I'm the same age as Ford and Kavanuagh and of the two unwanted advances I had to rebuff in my teens I remember the year, month, location and could describe the surroundings and in the ensuing years since I have told other people.

And this woman can't even pin point the year?

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/17/demo...r-hearing/

"...The Kavanaugh hearings were already an embarrassing spectacle in which Democrats ignored the rules, processes and procedures when it suited them. Yet, if Republicans refuse to hold more open hearings now, they will be accused of ignoring sexual assault. If they do hold hearings, they will be accused of attacking a sexual assault survivor, anyway. Republicans will never be able to ask Ford anything useful, because they’re mostly white men, and white men are, I’m told, perfunctorily racist and misogynist. If Republicans bring up the fact that Ford’s allegation wasn’t reported or relayed to anyone for more than 30 years — until Kavanaugh’s name emerged as a possible Supreme Court justice — they will be accused of attacking a woman. If they point out that her therapist’s notes, the ones that Ford claims prove her charge, in some ways contradict what she is now saying, they will be portrayed as a bunch of men attacking a sexual assault survivor. When they point out that polygraph tests are unreliable and inadmissible in courts, they will be accused of berating a victim.

Republicans are simply expected to nod their heads in agreement.

The entire time, the media will cover the hearings, and the accuser, according to well-established norms – which is to say Ford will be treated like Anita Hill, not Juanita Broaddrick...."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/17/new-kava...ation.html

Its been delayed a few days. Hearing on Monday. Maybe next Thursday committee votes.

(09-17-2018 01:43 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If she’s lying, then why include someone in the lie who would obviously disagree?

Or why come up with such a vague lie. If this was all a set up, the details wouldn't be so fuzzy.

(09-17-2018 02:27 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:17 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:13 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:10 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 01:16 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  She passed a polygraph test. Perhaps tge good judge would also submit to one?

Seems the witness she named said it never happened.

And I’m sure he will have an opportunity to testify, under oath, as well.

If she decides to cooperate.

And if she gets her stories ironed out.

She’ll cooperate

Yes. Sure. Her lawyer is pitching the “she will cooperate but she’s not going to be part of the partisan goings on in Washington”.
Obviously she doesn’t want to answer any questions. Like, why did you delete all of your social media accounts before you made this public?

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/...ing/n10108

SNL did a pretty good job of parodying the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearing - something tells me next Monday's hearing won't get as good of a recap this time around. Funny how many of the Senators portrayed (Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and Al Franken as Paul Simon) have been in their own form of hot water through the years.

(09-17-2018 09:13 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:27 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:17 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:13 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:10 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Seems the witness she named said it never happened.

And I’m sure he will have an opportunity to testify, under oath, as well.

If she decides to cooperate.

And if she gets her stories ironed out.

She’ll cooperate

Yes. Sure. Her lawyer is pitching the “she will cooperate but she’s not going to be part of the partisan goings on in Washington”.
Obviously she doesn’t want to answer any questions. Like, why did you delete all of your social media accounts before you made this public?

If you intended to remain anonymous, why did you take a polygraph and hire a lawyer back in August?

(09-17-2018 09:10 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 01:43 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If she’s lying, then why include someone in the lie who would obviously disagree?

Or why come up with such a vague lie. If this was all a set up, the details wouldn't be so fuzzy.

exactly why you tell a vague lie. how can you defend yourself against vague allegations.

i saw you steal the car

when? 30 years ago
where? im not sure, parked on one of those streets
who else saw it? there were three, no- four people, but they didnt see it

Im going to hire a lawyer and take a polygraph a month before i tell anyone you stole the car but keep me anonymous. Ill tell someone to tell someone a week before you get a new job.

guilty, prove your innocence.

ridiculous, absurd, stupidity from a resist at all costs lunatic.

(09-17-2018 09:10 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 01:43 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If she’s lying, then why include someone in the lie who would obviously disagree?

Or why come up with such a vague lie. If this was all a set up, the details wouldn't be so fuzzy.

A vague lie is safer.
If she actually gives a firm date and location she can be factchecked.

(09-17-2018 09:13 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:27 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:17 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:13 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:10 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Seems the witness she named said it never happened.

And I’m sure he will have an opportunity to testify, under oath, as well.

If she decides to cooperate.

And if she gets her stories ironed out.

She’ll cooperate

Yes. Sure. Her lawyer is pitching the “she will cooperate but she’s not going to be part of the partisan goings on in Washington”.
Obviously she doesn’t want to answer any questions. Like, why did you delete all of your social media accounts before you made this public?

Since she is a sociology professor from Stanford...Betting the odds are pretty good that she was a pussyhat wearing protestor of the inauguration.

(09-17-2018 09:25 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 09:13 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:27 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:17 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:13 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  And I’m sure he will have an opportunity to testify, under oath, as well.

If she decides to cooperate.

And if she gets her stories ironed out.

She’ll cooperate

Yes. Sure. Her lawyer is pitching the “she will cooperate but she’s not going to be part of the partisan goings on in Washington”.
Obviously she doesn’t want to answer any questions. Like, why did you delete all of your social media accounts before you made this public?

Since she is a sociology professor from Stanford...Betting the odds are pretty good that she was a pussyhat wearing protestor of the inauguration.

and....here you go

(09-17-2018 09:25 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 09:13 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:27 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:17 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 02:13 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  And I’m sure he will have an opportunity to testify, under oath, as well.

If she decides to cooperate.

And if she gets her stories ironed out.

She’ll cooperate

Yes. Sure. Her lawyer is pitching the “she will cooperate but she’s not going to be part of the partisan goings on in Washington”.
Obviously she doesn’t want to answer any questions. Like, why did you delete all of your social media accounts before you made this public?

Since she is a sociology professor from Stanford...Betting the odds are pretty good that she was a pussyhat wearing protestor of the inauguration.

Actually reported she was there and wore a poosey hat. Also gave money to both HC and Hussein. And has been reported she has family ties with Fusion GPS if you can believe that chit. She deleted all social media before being identified so as to hide her political leanings.