Guys just give it up, it's very likely Ford completely made up this story as I said previously. She has made several changes to her story now, from how the assault happened in her late-teens and in the mid 80:s to age 15 and to early 80:s. She changed the location of the house during the hearing, changed how the house looked inside.

She can't remember how she got home, but says she had no driver license and the way home took 20 minutes to drive. How did she get home? Just walking would take about a day considering the driving distance and there was no cellphones back than. It would be difficult to get home and she can't remember it?

She claimed in the letter to Feinstien there where 5 people at the party but in the hearing she changed it to 6 people and could had been more.

Most importantly her therapist notes don't corroborate her story any longer which she used to get washingtonpost to print this story. Now they would had never printed it.

 

Notice what all three allegations has in common, there are not a single first-hand witness that can corroborate it. Despite there being a total 7 witness named and should potentially be upwards 100 first-hand witnesses. Only witness that has so far corroborated it is a anonymous dude that said he heard about the second incident and a lot of people knew of it. Well every reporter right now has contacted every classmate in highschool, college and probably a lot more people. So far found nothing except that he was a heavy drinker.

He should've been confirmed weeks ago.  I love the two popular talking points coming from those who oppose him as to why his nomination should be withdrawn:

1) It's a "job interview", not a trial, and he's not entitled to a "promotion".

Question... how many job interviews have you been on where you've been asked if you ever raped anyone and if YOU can prove that you haven't, even though the person accusing you of rape has no recollection of key details such as when and where it happened and no one else is corroborating her accusations.  He's facing serious criminal allegations during said "job interview" and is being treated like he's a defendant on trial even though he's not.

2)  His behavior during Thursday's hearings proves that he doesn't have the "temperament" to be on the Supreme Court.

Uh huh... this after he's spent decades on the bench with zero issues or controversy whatsoever, and has spent the last few weeks having his and his family's name dragged through the mud based on unsubstantiated sexual assault allegations.  I'm sure he was supposed to just put on a happy face and act like it's all good during the hearings where he's getting grilled on everything from his high school yearbook to a freaking calendar that he kept.

Also, let's say his nomination does get tanked at the last minute by the Democrats and a couple of wishy-washy Republicans.  If he's not fit to serve on the SCOTUS based on alleged incidents from his high school / college days, then that must also mean he's not fit to continue his current position, correct?  I mean, we're talking about someone who's being accused of assaulting multiple women without substantial proof.  Are you going to allow him to continue at his current position with these allegations still hanging over his head?

Plus, you'll be setting an incredible precedent that from now on anyone can have their life / career ruined by someone with an axe to grind just by hurling baseless accusations at them from decades ago that can neither be definitively proven or disproven.  Do you REALLY want to go down that rabbit hole?

thismeintiel said: Dems opposed him.  Called him evil.  Said he would kill millions with his rulings.

You've made this "kill millions" claim several times.  Can you identify what you are basing this claim on? 

Torillian said: thismeintiel said: Oh, that's strange.  The way you stated that, it seemed like you knew exactly who these people were and how they acted and talked back then.  I figured you were their friend. Maybe you should try and wait for her to disagree with him before you act like you knew exactly what happened between him and his friends.  I'm pretty sure she is one of the women who is standing with him, though.  Which probably means what he said was truthful. "According to reports, Dolphin had initially been one of 65 women to endorse Kavanaugh after the sexual assault allegations came to light from Christine Blasey Ford. Dolphin withdrew her endorsement after Ford's accusation came to light." https://abc7chicago.com/politics/brett-kavanaugh-explains-devils-triangle-other-yearbook-references-/4354071/ “I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,” Ms. Dolphin said in a statement to The New York Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html So now that you know she took her name from the endorsement and that she thinks the insinuation is horrible and hurtful can we agree on the obvious?

You may want to go ahead and read the whole thing. Cause she even says that they never even kissed, which he believed they did. So, she says no sexual contact at all, which he said, as well. So, why would they write that if it didn't mean what he said? They each took her on a date at least once, where nothing sexual happened. Sorry, still doesn't help convict the man. 

thismeintiel said: Torillian said: "According to reports, Dolphin had initially been one of 65 women to endorse Kavanaugh after the sexual assault allegations came to light from Christine Blasey Ford. Dolphin withdrew her endorsement after Ford's accusation came to light." https://abc7chicago.com/politics/brett-kavanaugh-explains-devils-triangle-other-yearbook-references-/4354071/ “I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,” Ms. Dolphin said in a statement to The New York Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html So now that you know she took her name from the endorsement and that she thinks the insinuation is horrible and hurtful can we agree on the obvious? You may want to go ahead and read the whole thing. Cause she even says that they never even kissed, which he believed they did. So, she says no sexual contact at all, which he said, as well. So, why would they write that if it didn't mean what he said? They each took her on a date at least once, where nothing sexual happened. Sorry, still doesn't help convict the man.

They wrote it in because they were lying about their sexual prowess, because they were high school boys. Feel like I'm in some alternate reality where devil's triangle is a drinking game and you call yourself an alumnius of some girl as a term of respect but then never tell her about it because you don't want to respect her to her face. This is probably what people who talk about the Mandela Effect feel like. 

Trumpstyle said: LOL she also changed the story how many people were at the party, in her letter to Feinstein she said "The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others." This is 5 people. But in her testimony she said 4 boys and 2 girls so total of 6 people. She has made several other changes to her story but I'm not american and don't wanna write a wall of text. Basically Kavanaugh was just about to completely bust her story in his opening statement but because of all the small changes she made to her story during her hearing (house location, how the house looked inside and changing story how many people were in the house) he failed :). Take also into account how Ford also changed the timeline when this assault happened. Anyway I would say it's 95% chance Ford just completely made up this story and it's shameful how the media in USA it's not picking it up.

And this is the most damning evidence that she is lying, or at least changing the facts around so that it was Kavanaugh who did something to her in her past, when it was actually someone else.  Which is what really pisses me off.

Think about it.  Imagine this was a publicized court hearing, and we took politics out of it.  So, we don't know the political affiliation of either party.  The second it comes to light that Ford changed her story several times, of course as more info comes out.  Can't remember simple details that should be etched into her brain, like who was in the room and how she got there and got home.  Her best friend she brought to the party (why she brought a 13 year old, who knows) said she never met Kavanaugh at a party.  Lied about having to postpone the actual hearing because she was afraid to fly, but we find out she actually flies everywhere, so it was obviously a delay tactic to groom her.  Wants the defendant to go first, so she can change her story to match something he said.  Says, "Oh, it could have been that July 1st date he put in his calendar," only AFTER that info surfaces.  Which is impossible, because she says it was in a single family, two story house near the club house, but that was actually at a townhouse 11 miles away.  Said she met the guy who was there at her attempted rape at a store he worked at, decided to be friendly to him and say hi, but can't remember what day/week it was.  Oh, but she'll name it once she looks at his work schedule.

With all that, with no politics attached, 90%+ of America would be like, "Yea, that woman is obviously lying."  Even if before they found her believable.  Oh, but throw in politics, and people will make themselves believe ANYTHING.  Who gives a shit if it destroys a man and his family, he's a political opponent.  In fact, he should be in jail with not a single shred of proof at all.  Pathetic.

Question... how many job interviews have you been on where you've been asked if you ever raped anyone and if YOU can prove that you haven't, even though the person accusing you of rape has no recollection of key details such as when and where it happened and no one else is corroborating her accusations.  He's facing serious criminal allegations during said "job interview" and is being treated like he's a defendant on trial even though he's not.

I've never had a job interview for a lifetime appointment that has no way of firing me should they hire me incorrectly. If this guy was in his 70's I'd be willing to give him a pass - because a mistake will last less time. As it is - a SC nom is forever - as in until they decide they are tired of the job - there is no way currently to remove a seated judge - this kind of thing requires a bit more scrutiny perhaps. That all said - I've never seen a SC judge (in my lifetime) get through the process this fast - usually it takes like a year so all the background stuff can be done *prior* to the hearing. The rush to get this done so fast is why everything is ramped up to 11. Don't blame the dems for that - it's been an open secret that Mitch McConnell had planned to slam the SC nomination through before the elections - widely reported through the first half of this year. All of the current problems with the SC nomination process can be laid at his feet. And yeah - dems screwed the pooch over federal judges - but good lord that's a different ball game than SC noms. Lastly - the temperament when being questioned does matter - Clarence Thomas has a similar grilling - he got confirmed. He didn't look like a petulant man-baby when being questioned. If you can't handle the nomination process - you are free to turn down the nomination.

coolbeans said: Rab said: Put him on a polygraph test, if he refuses then cancel his appointment This isn't the movies.  Lie detectors have been very little scientific backing.

 

This is funny because he supports their use for law enforcement:

But the judge wrote in 2016 that polygraph tests were an “important law enforcement tool.” Kavanaugh wrote the unanimous opinion for the three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., finding that the Defense Department could withhold reports about whether lie detector tests were effective under the federal public records law. “The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes,” Kavanaugh wrote.

https://apnews.com/937ab9e859ae4c018f6960f451a39460

Trumpstyle said: Guys just give it up, it's very likely Ford completely made up this story as I said previously. She has made several changes to her story now, from how the assault happened in her late-teens and in the mid 80:s to age 15 and to early 80:s. She changed the location of the house during the hearing, changed how the house looked inside. She can't remember how she got home, but says she had no driver license and the way home took 20 minutes to drive. How did she get home? Just walking would take about a day considering the driving distance and there was no cellphones back than. It would be difficult to get home and she can't remember it? She claimed in the letter to Feinstien there where 5 people at the party but in the hearing she changed it to 6 people and could had been more. Most importantly her therapist notes don't corroborate her story any longer which she used to get washingtonpost to print this story. Now they would had never printed it.   Notice what all three allegations has in common, there are not a single first-hand witness that can corroborate it. Despite there being a total 7 witness named and should potentially be upwards 100 first-hand witnesses. Only witness that has so far corroborated it is a anonymous dude that said he heard about the second incident and a lot of people knew of it. Well every reporter right now has contacted every classmate in highschool, college and probably a lot more people. So far found nothing except that he was a heavy drinker.

Forgot to mention in my previous reply to you, but she also changed her story in a big way concerning PJ Smyth.  At first, he was one of the boys in the room with her while this supposed attempted rape happened.  She called him a bystander.  Then, when we get to the actual hearing, "Oh, that was a mistake I made. He was actually downstairs."  Why the change?  My guess is it has something to do with some piece of info that PJ had in his letter he signed under threat of perjury.  So, he went from an accomplice, or at least someone who watched it happened and did nothing, to no guilt at all.  Very fishy.  Along with everything else.

coolbeans said: Jaicee said: Yesterday, I made it through another day without being confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court and my life (such as it is) wasn't ruined or anything! Just passing along the update. Good to know.  Say, how have you been holding up in these respects: -having millions upon millions of people in your native country believing you to be a rapist/attempted rapist based on uncorroborated allegations? -those same people validating those beliefs based on your angry response to such charges that'll live on with you for the rest of your life--EVEN IF all evidence pans out your way? -the harassment your immediate family has experienced based on this? If all of your answers to those following questions are "I haven't experienced these things so I wouldn't know," I suggest reevaluating what you actually put across with this comment.

Don't forget.  Even if he is voted in, the left and their Hollywood machine will portray him as a rapist til the day he dies and after.  While Ford will be given a cushy job and be praised to no end.

Final-Fan said: thismeintiel said: Dems opposed him.  Called him evil.  Said he would kill millions with his rulings.  You've made this "kill millions" claim several times.  Can you identify what you are basing this claim on?

Here you go.  Have fun wading through these cesspool quotes.

Torillian said: thismeintiel said: You may want to go ahead and read the whole thing. Cause she even says that they never even kissed, which he believed they did. So, she says no sexual contact at all, which he said, as well. So, why would they write that if it didn't mean what he said? They each took her on a date at least once, where nothing sexual happened. Sorry, still doesn't help convict the man.  They wrote it in because they were lying about their sexual prowess, because they were high school boys. Feel like I'm in some alternate reality where devil's triangle is a drinking game and you call yourself an alumnius of some girl as a term of respect but then never tell her about it because you don't want to respect her to her face. This is probably what people who talk about the Mandela Effect feel like.

Oh, so I was right to begin with.  You were one of his posse and used the same lingo.  Though, that is odd, because your profile says you are 33, so you couldn't have been going to school in the early 80's.  Hmm.  You have to be lying about one of those.