Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Democrats don’t care about women. They only care about women if the alleged abuser is a Republican. It’s all politics.

The whole thing was merely a political stick which the left attempted to use to beat Kavanaugh to death.

You don’t have to look far into the DNC to find equally damning/ worse accusations against current prominent Democrats (Rep. Keith Ellison - Minnesota). I don’t see mobs of angry women/Democrats trying to destroy his life.

Let alone how the Clintons have treated women/What Ted Kennedy did.

The hypocrisy is astounding but it’s no surprise to any fair minded person.

 

Al Franken was Republican?

Fair minded people need to read and pay more attention.

 

That doesn't prove perjury. I don't know the specifics, but if the doors from 2008 were still an issue of tension then the therapy could have started in 2012 or whenever. Perhaps the 2012 remodeling tensions were about changes that she wanted to make to the doors from 2008. There are plenty of reasons why that wouldn't be perjury. It is also possible that she was dishonest in that answer. That still wouldn't necessarily be able to be proven as perjury. Most of Kavanaughs many lies and dishonest answers wouldn't be proven as perjury either.

 

A fair-minded person would have recognized the Democrats got Al Franken and John Conyers to retire instead of sticking up for them like the Republicans did. The Democrats are miles and miles above the Republicans when it comes to the high ground on this.

 

In the same vein, have you noticed all the Dems angry with Avanetti because of his client's gang rape allegations? but they aren't mad that his client falsely accused an innocent man of gang rape, which is unbelievably horrible. Instead they are mad because it makes Ford's claims look less credible. They don't care what the false accusation did to Kavanaugh and his family, only what it did to their gameplan.

 

The damage was done to Kavanaugh without that allegation. Everyone should be mad when false allegations weaken the allegations which are more substantial.

 

Al Franken disagrees with your in depth analysis.

 

Yeah, you finally have a point, Dr Ford's false allegations did damage first.

 

Oh wow, that's adorable. The "we sacrificed Al Franken" so that "buys" us political currency when the next scandal occurs. As if, that's how it works. I'm sure that will comfort the Keith Ellison survivors to know.

The juxtaposition is clear as day.

Brett Kavanaugh accused of sexual assault by a woman.

Democractic response = unconditional and unequivocal support, #WeBelieveSurvivors mass protests flooding the halls of congress, women weeping, loud and public denunciations.

Keith Ellison, deputy chair of the DNC, accused of domestic violence twice by two different women.

Democratic response *crickets* erm, that's a tough one, we should look into that, maybe.

Where did the unconditional and unequivocal support go? Oh you only #WeBelieveSurvivors when it's political advantageous? Oh wow, what a shocker.

 

Did G*d tell you that the allegations were false? Or were you hiding in the closet during the "alleged" attack?

 

lol, none of the allegation were substantial. I know you really want to believe Dr. Ford because you do not want Kavanaugh on the court but there was absolutely no proof she was telling the truth. In fact there was more proof she was lying about it. It is okay to not like Kavanaugh and to not want him on the court but it is not okay to try to use allegations that have much more exculpatory evidence than proof to keep him off of it.

 

She claimed it to be an ongoing issue and that they were arguing between what she wanted and what he wanted to do with the doors.....something that was decided 4 years prior and she got her way. Sorry guy, she lied, no amount of mental gymnastics is going to change that. For whatever reason she didn't want to say why she was really in couple's therapy so she gave that lie instead.

Now of course the difference between what I'm saying is Dr. Ford's perjury and what you are claiming is Kavanaugh's perjury is that I have proof behind my statement and you have innuendo and speculation behind yours.

Here's the actual testimony

FORD: "I had never told the details to anyone until May 2012, during a couple’s counseling session. The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand. In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail."

FEINSTEIN: “I see. And do you have that second front door?”

FORD: “Yes.”

Building permits prove that the second front door was completed in 2008. There were no permits issued from 2012 on other than adding solar panels and a charging station for an electric car. Her story is flat out a lie.

 

The permits do not prove they were completed in 2008. They prove they were issued in 2008. The arguments could have been ongoing after the renovations were completed. Your permits do not prove perjury.

I have proof of Cavanaugh's lies... It was in his very emails, texts, letters written by him, his grandfather's enrollment at Yale, etc. His lies were proven by evidence and not the hints and speculation that you claim. Your side ignoring the proof doesn't change the fact that it exists.

 

LOL, you're a pro, so you're saying that they took out the permits to do exactly what she was claiming they wanted to do in 2008, then argued about it for 4 years before agreeing to get the work done? Also during those 4 years the permits didn't lapse? I'm not sure if you know this, but typically building permits expire if the work hasn't begun within 180 days.

 

The party behind a p***y grabber are caring women down to the bottom.

 

That's not exactly what I'm saying. I have no idea when the work was done or how long the disagreements lasted. You don't know either. It doesn't prove perjury.

 

Yeah you do, the work was done in 2008 since you know it got done and you know that no new permits were ever issued. Face it, the story was a lie, and it was a lie that couldn't have been an accident and couldn't have been anything else. You can say that you don't mind that she lied and that you still think that there's no way she was incorrect or lying about anything else.....but you can't say that she wasn't lying when it comes to the door story explaining why she first started telling everyone a story about an attempted rape "in her late teens" during the "mid 80's" which then turned into "15" and "early 80's".

 

I get it. You are making assumptions to fit the narrative you wish to be true. You don't know diddly about the work or their family arguments. Your case was denied.