Fine he is a repeated liar over and over and over.
Are you actually accusing me of being a pathological liar? Really?
Are you actually accusing me of being a pathological liar? Really?
Are you actually accusing me of being a pathological liar? Really?
Definition of projection
Yes, this is all so. This poster, puts up no argument, no rationale, no logic and has no problems calling others wrong when they have no backup whatsoever. It’s like a trap and everyone on this forum should know this.
No, not really. I don’t see the word “pathological liar” anywhere. Can there be a better example of a lack of honesty to out of the blue, accuse someone of calling one a name?
Not true. An investigation could exonerate Kavanaugh by questioning Mark Judge and others who might contradict Dr. Ford. (unless you’re afraid that it would do the opposite.)
The way to combat false accusations is to refute them - not to hurry up so those accusations are never heard.
Just like Ford’s allegations, the one by Metis1 has no evidence to support it. The specific claim was that “Ford has stated that she does want an FBI investigation but Kavanaugh has not agreed to it.”
But that wasn’t the accusation, was it? The alteration of what someone has said to make it more defensible ought to be a strong indication that the original statement is in fact indefensible.
Well then, doesn’t this mean that the claim that “Kavanaugh has not agreed to it” (FBI investigation) is untrue? If he was never asked, and if there is no evidence he ever volunteered an opinion, then why are you objecting to my statement? Why object to something you have essentially acknowledged is accurate?
The committee already has sworn affidavits from everyone named by Ford as being at the party…that is, all except from Ford herself. Everyone she named is now subject to perjury charges, and every one of them has denied her story. And Kavanaugh’s name will never be cleared, the media has seen to that.
And I already agreed that this specific claim was “too far” (i.e. false) but a very similar claim is true. That is the fact that Dr. Ford, through her lawyers, has asked for an FBI investigation. No one denies that. And Kavanaugh did not ask for one. No one denies that either. You attempted to explain why he did not ask for one and I addressed your explanation.LeafByNiggle:
Just like Ford’s allegations, the one by Metis1 has no evidence to support it. The specific claim was that “Ford has stated that she does want an FBI investigation but Kavanaugh has not agreed to it.”
Sworn affidavits do not answer all the questions an FBI investigation might look into. All you have to do is listen to the various probing questions put to Dr. Ford yesterday by the hired questioner designed to probe for inconsistencies to her story. Sworn affidavits do not provide any such information. They only tell what they tell. This still does not explain why Republicans would miss this opportunity to undermine Dr. Ford’s testimony. From what you are saying, an investigation into these other witnesses will do just that.
THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. When the FBI investigated Anita Hill’s accusations all they did was obtain testimony, and senate Democrats never accepted their findings anyway. As I said, the senate already has statements from everyone Ford named…and every single one of them denies her allegation.
This assertion is as untrue as the one by Metis1. I never attempted to explain why he did not ask for an FBI investigation. Is it really that difficult to deal with what is actually said?
If sworn statements rejecting her claims from every person named by Ford have not sufficiently undermined her testimony then it is not possible to do so. At least for anyone on the left.
If the ABA was truly concerned about our judicial system they would be better advised to show more alarm that someone can be accused without a shred of evidence and be publicly convicted without even a pretense of due process.
An FBI investigation questioning of Mark Judge has not been done. If it were done and he positively refuted Dr. Ford’s claim, that might carry more weight, since the questioning might probe inconsistencies in his story. And when you say “every single one one of them denies her allegation,” all you can say really is that every single one of them does not remember the events. They have not said they are positively sure those events didn’t happen. That is an importing distinction.LeafByNiggle:
THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. When the FBI investigated Anita Hill’s accusations all they did was obtain testimony, and senate Democrats never accepted their findings anyway. As I said, the senate already has statements from everyone Ford named…and every single one of them denies her allegation.
Are you making this up as you go. Do you really know what those witnesses said or are you just guessing?