Smedley_buzkill

Here is the complete report. It shreds Ford's credibility.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/?ut

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

A question has been bothering me.... perhaps you can explain. Why did Ms.Ford go upstairs with two or three boys? Normally girls excuse themselves and go to the restroom together.
And why was she still wearing a swim suite.... was this a pool party? And 6 weeks later she went to a grocery store in his neighborhood? There are grocery stores all over the area, but she drove 20 minutes to a store where Mark Judge, one of her attackers worked..... why? If someone tried to rape me, I would go out of my way to avoid them. She could remember so many things in detail, why can't she remember the person who rescued her by driving her home. I remember every kindness a person extends to me.... even the stranger who gave me a quarter to call home on my first day in basic training. Her name was AIC Adams, dimples, blond hair and brown eyes. She was from Tennessee. I was in basic training in 1976.... I was not being rescued from a would be rapist, but I remember her with complete clarity. But, Ford can not remember who rescued her. Seems strange to me.

Now it seems like there are inconsistencies in Julie Swetnick's claim.

PeterS

This isn't about whether her case could be prosecuted but whether Kavanaugh was t***hful and his actions reveal flaws in his character that would disqualify him from a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. All that needs to happen is that two Republicans peel away and that Democrats hold service. Plus if Ford's testimony isn't enough there is also a strong possibility that Kavanaugh perjured himself when he said he heard about Ramirez compared to when he actually did and is guilty of witness tampering if he contacted witnesses prior to publication of Ramirez assault claims--which appears he may have.

So this isn't over by any means and he will be lucky if he holds his current seat and isn't thrown in jail!

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/10/1/1800617/-NBC-News-Kavanaugh-contacted-witnesses-prior-to-publication-of-Ramirez-assault-claims?detail=facebook
https://www.politicususa.com/2018/10/01/uncovered-text-messages-nail-kavanaugh-for-tampering-with-witnesses-and-lying-under-oath.html

woodguru

So what she was picked and paid for by the GOP, which would be why this person should have been picked by both Grassley and Feinstein.

She was not paid to weigh in on opinion, only to ask the questions. Deciphering the responses is the senator's job.

You guys seem to think this is a proof beyond a reasonable doubt prosecution, its not. Hint or suspicion of doubt is all that's needed to reject him as unfit for the SCOTUS.

woodguru

You are trying to make this a trial where doubt about Ford exonerates Brett. No matter what Ford did or is Brett is to be judged on his moral character, it isn't about just Ford. Did he have involvements with getting girls drunk and abusing them, is that credible as far as all the things coming out. This is not a trial on Ford, all that matters is what kind of a person is Brett. His evasiveness is enough to withdraw him, refusing to answer questions is enough, if the FBI comes up with anything showing he lied its enough. Kavanaugh is not on trial, all that's required to prove he's not fit is the suspicion that he's got character issues or issues with being open and t***hful, that it seems like he's hiding things.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I don't know what USA you are living in, but in the USA where I live the accuser has
the burden of proof. If the accuser does not know when, where or who... and there are no witnesses or anything to collaborate their story, then there is no case. In the USA where I live, a person is presumed innocent until they are proven guilty. In the USA where I live the accused has a right to question either directly or through their attorney the accuser.
Right now, Judge K is accused of a crime but the one accusing him has no evidence nor does she know what house it occurred, the date, or how many people were present. And she lied under oath. Her husband lied under oath (as noted in her mental heath file from her psychiatrist).

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

The only crime Kavanaugh committed is accepting his appointment from president Trump. If Obama had nominated him, why hell, Brett Kavanaugh would be a perfect saint.

And for a man to be exonerated of any wrong doing, he must first be found guilty of it.

You and all your comrades in the democrat Politburo are the ones with character issues, very serious and utterly detestable character issues. It is impossible for a rational and decent person to watch a man as persecuted as Kavanaugh has been bear his heart and soul to the world in his own defense and think he has an "aversion to being open and t***hful". To see him that way is diabolical.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

If anyone has flaws in his character, it would be h**eful cretins like you. You any your goose stepping comrades are really nasty people.

Radiance3

=================
The prosecutor Mitchell did a great job on her examining the case of Blasey-Ford. The report was fair and honest. I thought at the beginning, it was a mistake to have her. Her summary was great.

Smedley_buzkill

Which Democrats can manufacture in a never ending supply of accusations without a shred of proof.
Picked by Feinstein? The same Feinstein who sat on Ford's letter for 3 weeks, sprung it on the committee at the last possible moment, and then demanded more time for an investigation that could have been completed before Kavenaugh's appearance before the Judiciary Committee? I'm sure Feinstein would have made a wonderful pick. After all, she was so perceptive that she kept a Chinese spy on her staff for years. She really knows how to pick 'em.
By the way, if hint or suspicion was all that was necessary to disqualify someone from the SCOTUS, both Sotomayor and Kagan would have gotten the axe. Why don't you say what you mean; that anything or nothing at all is all that is necessary to disqualify a Conservative from the SCOTUS. I mean, Kavenaugh has had the audacity to disagree with Liberals. How dare he?

bahmer

Amen and Amen