Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Did you pay for the polygraph? I don’t think so? Wth?

 

Its the Senates job to confirm or deny a nominee. If this was a Democrat controlled Senate, I wouldn't care if they refused to. That is how the system was setup.

Now its evident that people can come forward and make accusations that hold very very little weight. If these accusations were a decade ago, I would take them more serious. But over 3 decades ago with very few details? I barely remember a fraction of the nonsense back in my 'party' days... and that wasn't 3 decades ago. I have conversations with my brothers about our childhood and we always have conflicting memories. Any lawyer (besides Sam) will tell you a witnesses account is always the least accurate.

 

There's really no need to "prove her wrong", she's the one that has to prove something and she has literally nothing backing up her story. 100% of the evidence points to her story being at a minimum inaccurate if not completely fabricated.

 

Yeahhh I only listened to about 4 minutes and I heard that part. She has no credibility.

Then the part where she said she took the poly on the day of her Grandmothers funeral ... and then corrects herself to the next day. Who would ever agree to take a polygraph on the day of or day after a funeral of a family member. This woman is nuts.

 

This is ridiculous.

 

Booker is a dumb ass.

 

Not really if you know even the first thing about how polygraphs work.

 

I was a federal prosecutor.

I am well aware of polygraphs.... their admissability, the Frye...Dauber test... etc.

The idea that they made her take the polygraph near the time of the death of her grandma to change the results is absurd.

 

I'm not sure your example is apples to apples.

That said, she could have been being evasive, for sure. Please provide a transcript or link to the specific exchange you find shady.

 

I don’t disagree there was clear political motivations from the attorneys and I don’t think her attorneys have helped her out a lot, but that doesn’t dismiss the allegations she put forth. I really wish we could get a full investigation but that’s not reality. I feel like she really emphasized Mark Judge when she mentioned him. He also had the weakest of all the denials. I’m betting Judge would be pleading the 5th a lot if they ever got him up there.

 

Huge mistake. His Boy Scout bs is fake as hell.

 

But you are aware that her emotional state could easily have influenced the outcome, yes? You are just saying that they wouldn't have done that.

I've been over it a few times now, her initial answer to the question about if she had any assistance in picking her legal team did not mention Feinstien's office and instead focused on friends and family suggesting divorce lawyers in the DC area....then she was asked specifically about others and she begrudgingly admitted to "maybe" getting some advice from Fienstien's office....then it came out that she picked the attorneys that Fienstien's office suggested. That was clearly her being evasive. Say whatever you want about what that means, but I don't think you can explain it any other way.

When the completely true answer is "Yes, I picked a firm based on the advice of Senator Feinstien's office" and you go on about divorce lawyers that family members knew....I mean, how can you see that another way?

 

Such great family values. POTUS has had 3 wives, slept around with prostitutes and seperated kids from their parents as a deterrent and a solution for illegal immigration.

 

She doesn't know because she doesn't know if it will be included in a lawyer's bill.

What a weird thing to hang your "no credibility!" hat on.

She came across as extremely credible. There is no smoking gun to attack her with. She would be a nightmare for a lawyer for the defendant in civil case.

The Senators themselves on the Democratic side were ridiculous, as is par for the course for both parties in these things. The Republican prosecutor was very lame.

All around a totally lame situation.

With all of that said, if I were a judge here and it were my decision, I would say that while I find her credible and believable and see no proof of any ulterior motive on her part, there is no evidence to substantiate her claims. I think each individual just has to vote based on their own comfort level.

That said, all of the people who are trashing her and questioning why she wouldn't have come forward years ago are ridiculously ignorant.

 

What dismisses the allegations she put forth is the fact that they can't be corroborated by literally any evidence or testimony.