(Vanity)
| Dangus
Posted on 9/28/2018, 9:04:57 AM by dangus
Why is it in the Republican talking points that Christine Blasey-Ford is a "credible witness?" Either she's lying or she's crazy or Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape her, but EVERY ... LAST ... SINGLE ... REPUBLICAN -- even Lindsey Graham -- I've heard has falling over themselves to establish that she's a "credible witness."
I believe SOMEONE attacked her. Maybe that's why she has spent her career finding uses for the abortion pill, to keep in on market in spite of its disastrous health records, and she has played along with this literally diabolical ambush. She never wanted to go public? Then why did she hire lawyers? Why did she call the Washington Post? Did she think that Diane Feinstein would say, "I have an anonymous tip that Kavanaugh is a rapist," and the Republicans would agree to block her nomination?
No, she is a reprobate, scheming liar who from California who has been attacked at some time in her past, and just like every acting coach advises, she's "using it." There is decent evidence someone attacked her. There is no evidence it was Brett Kavanaugh. Her only support was her testimony, and it stands impeached, so no, she is NOT a credible witness.
You here have all read her laundry list of lies. And I try to keep an open mind... I was waiting to hear something that rang at all truthful about why she couldn't get on an airplane. So he lawyers didn't tell her the committee was willing to COME TO HER? Didn't she READ THE NEWSPAPERS? So she has been put through Hell, she claims, by people attacking her for her claims; if she really didn't want to come forward, wouldn't she be a bit angry at the woman who broke her confidence, rather than bring it up in closed session? She had a borderline-unrealistic chance for Leland to corroborate her claims without admitting to anything at all unbecoming, and still her friend left no room for any doubt that her claims are false
.
Here's something that it doesn't seem anyone picked up on: does anyone really believe that the reason she's a basket case (her life would suggest she's not, but she's trying to present that she is on) is because of this fantastically traumatic experience, but she only mentioned it ONCE to her counsellor? Could it be that there's more in those notes that contradict her story?
Rather than providing any credible answer to these problems, she seemed fixated on a cover for the Democrats' failure to investigate her claims: the notion that if only the FBI would investigate, she would be able to deduce from Mike Judge's employment records when she met him in a store, and from that be able to say when she was attacked.
These claims aren't only not credible, they come across like lies carefully crafted with legal counsel. So why are the Republicans saying they seem credible?
I think they're trying to say she THINKS she's telling the truth, but she's wrong. Sorry, saying a woman is just crazy isn't better than saying she's lying. All that anyone is hearing is "she's credible." Which she's not. And the dignity of the Senate, the integrity of the Supreme Court as it tries to re-establish the Constitution, and yes, their own elections hinge on either appointing a DIFFERENT conservative to the Supreme Court, or establishing that Blasey-Ford is NOT credible. Well, it's far too late for that to salvage the dignity of the Senate...
Posted on 9/28/2018, 9:04:57 AM by dangus
Why is it in the Republican talking points that Christine Blasey-Ford is a "credible witness?" Either she's lying or she's crazy or Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape her, but EVERY ... LAST ... SINGLE ... REPUBLICAN -- even Lindsey Graham -- I've heard has falling over themselves to establish that she's a "credible witness."
I believe SOMEONE attacked her. Maybe that's why she has spent her career finding uses for the abortion pill, to keep in on market in spite of its disastrous health records, and she has played along with this literally diabolical ambush. She never wanted to go public? Then why did she hire lawyers? Why did she call the Washington Post? Did she think that Diane Feinstein would say, "I have an anonymous tip that Kavanaugh is a rapist," and the Republicans would agree to block her nomination?
No, she is a reprobate, scheming liar who from California who has been attacked at some time in her past, and just like every acting coach advises, she's "using it." There is decent evidence someone attacked her. There is no evidence it was Brett Kavanaugh. Her only support was her testimony, and it stands impeached, so no, she is NOT a credible witness.
You here have all read her laundry list of lies. And I try to keep an open mind... I was waiting to hear something that rang at all truthful about why she couldn't get on an airplane. So he lawyers didn't tell her the committee was willing to COME TO HER? Didn't she READ THE NEWSPAPERS? So she has been put through Hell, she claims, by people attacking her for her claims; if she really didn't want to come forward, wouldn't she be a bit angry at the woman who broke her confidence, rather than bring it up in closed session? She had a borderline-unrealistic chance for Leland to corroborate her claims without admitting to anything at all unbecoming, and still her friend left no room for any doubt that her claims are false
.
Here's something that it doesn't seem anyone picked up on: does anyone really believe that the reason she's a basket case (her life would suggest she's not, but she's trying to present that she is on) is because of this fantastically traumatic experience, but she only mentioned it ONCE to her counsellor? Could it be that there's more in those notes that contradict her story?
Rather than providing any credible answer to these problems, she seemed fixated on a cover for the Democrats' failure to investigate her claims: the notion that if only the FBI would investigate, she would be able to deduce from Mike Judge's employment records when she met him in a store, and from that be able to say when she was attacked.
These claims aren't only not credible, they come across like lies carefully crafted with legal counsel. So why are the Republicans saying they seem credible?
I think they're trying to say she THINKS she's telling the truth, but she's wrong. Sorry, saying a woman is just crazy isn't better than saying she's lying. All that anyone is hearing is "she's credible." Which she's not. And the dignity of the Senate, the integrity of the Supreme Court as it tries to re-establish the Constitution, and yes, their own elections hinge on either appointing a DIFFERENT conservative to the Supreme Court, or establishing that Blasey-Ford is NOT credible. Well, it's far too late for that to salvage the dignity of the Senate...
No comments:
Post a Comment