Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Let Mitchell ask all the questions for both parties. Its the only meaningful questions.

 

What evidence. It was something that happen 30 years ago with no physical evidence. Its just going to be a lot of he said/she said.

 

No, it comes down to who has evidence and corroboration to their story. Kavanaugh does, Ford does not. If you choose to believe the person who has no evidence or corroboration to support their story then you merely want to believe that version and are doing so against all logic.

 

you need to stop lying

name one person that has debunk her claim.


had there been a FBI investigation, the evidence gathered could either corroborate or debunk her accusation.

the Dems and all the accusers want an FBI investigation;

GOP don't, what are they afraid of ?

 

I have to agree here. If she discounted the percentage at all, they would have been all over it. How did you pick that number? What makes you have doubts? So you could be wrong?

No way to say she wrote the letters and made her statements if she isn't 100 percent sure.

 

Lmao. It's despicable how unsurprising it is that the left is already attacking Mitchell.

 

Literally everyone she has said was at the party. Most merely say that there was no party like that, some say that they never even met Brett Kavanaugh at any point ever. That flatly debunks her story that they were all at a 6 person party together.

Basically this is her word vs every other person she claims to have been there.

 

you forgot Mark Judge, BP's accomplice, as well as BK's college roomate

 

Interesting that you've never had this issue with any of the thousands of previous hearings where Senators or House members questioned people. Or likely will with any future hearing. I wonder why that could be?

 

How is that evidence? He's also said that the party never happened, just like literally everyone else that was supposed to have been there in her fantasy scenario.

 

I haven't? Thanks for telling me, I had no idea.

 

You do know people are convicted without physical evidence all the time, right? But this isn't even a criminal trial - this is a trial about credibility. If, for example, you talk to multiple people under oath who contradict Ford or Kavanaugh, then that affects each of their credibility. The GOP has refused to do that. I don't think the FBI necessarily needs to investigate - but if they deem Ford reasonably credible, they do have an obligation to ask Judge and others to testify.

 

ur projecting ur ignorance!

 

Are they convicted without any evidence whatsoever? I mean, that's what you are hoping to do, lynch a man based on nothing but a claim that has absolutely nothing to support it and that has actually been debunked by those who could potentially corroborate the story.

 

Did you ever complain about Senators and House reps doing questioning in the 8 different Bengazi investigations? When partisans questioned HIllary for 8 hours under oath? Or questioning the FBI people in the Mueller case? Or doing the previous question of Kavanaugh? You posted quite a bit about each of those topics.

 

LOL then answer the question, how is that evidence?

 

I didn't watch them.

Its good to know that i must post my feelings or else i didn;t have them.

 

She is extremely brave for going through with this. Horrible format and process. It's more of a politic platform, not truth seeking. Damn all of those, on both sides, that play politics with this.