Sex-Crimes Prosecutor Details 12 Massive Inconsistencies In Kavanaugh Accuser’s Story
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford about her allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has released a memo detailing inconsistencies in Ford’s testimony.
“I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee,” Rachel Mitchell wrote in a five-page-long memo obtained by The Washington Post. “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that.”
Throughout the blistering memo, Mitchell, who questioned Ford on behalf of Senate Republicans during a public hearing last Thursday, outlines 12 big problems with Ford’s testimony.
1. Witnesses Corroborate Not Ford, But Kavanaugh’s Stance
Ford named a friend, Leland Ingham Keyser, as at the drunken high school party where Ford says Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Keyser has repeatedly said that she does not remember any such event and has refused to corroborate Ford’s story.
Ford also named two others — Mark Judge and Patrick “PJ” Smyth — as being at the party or in the room when the attack allegedly occurred. Both of these men have also said, under penalty of legal action, they have no recollection of any such attack taking place.
“Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them,” Mitchell wrote.
2. Ford Keeps Changing Her Story On When The Alleged Attack Occurred
Initially, Ford kept altering the timeline about when the alleged attack took place, then suddenly narrowed it down to the summer of 1982 just before her testimony without explaining how she was able to do that.
Here are the different versions of the story she’s told reporters, lawmakers, and her therapist, from Mitchell’s memo.
• In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
• In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
• Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school
summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not
explain.• A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the
“summer of 1982.”• Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session
• While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain
in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the
Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not
turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular
year.
3. Ford Didn’t Name Kavanaugh As The Attacker Until Now
Leading up to the hearing, Ford told The Post she had therapy notes from a marriage counseling session in 2012 in which she outlined the alleged assault. Post reporter Emma Brown noted that Ford did not name Kavanaugh as the assailant in these notes. The only time Ford has named Kavanaugh as the assailant on the record was after he was nominated as a Supreme Court justice.
Mitchell outlines this in the timeline below.
• No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
• No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
• Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in
2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a
potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
• In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure
of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.
4. Ford Has Changed The Description Of The Trauma She Allegedly Suffered
“When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become
less specific,” Mitchell notes. “Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a ‘sexual assault’ before they were married. But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of ‘physical abuse’ at the beginning of their marriage. She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.”
5. Ford Can’t Recall Key Details That Could Corroborate Her Story
Mitchell noted that Ford doesn’t remember who invited her to the party nor does she remember how she heard about it. She doesn’t remember how she got to and from the party where she says the attack took place — which before cell phones is odd.
“She stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter,” the sex prosecutor noted.
6. Ford Has Changed Her Story About The Alleged Attack
“According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault,” Mitchell states. “But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.”
7. The Number Of People She Says Were Present At The Party Keeps Changing
As The Federalist reported last week , Ford’s testimony has been inconsistent in the number of people she says were at the party. She told Post there were four boys at the party, but in her polygraph statement, she said there were “four people boys and a couple of girls.”
8. Ford’s Recent Memory Is Full Of Gaps
Mitchell notes that Ford was unable to remember key details of events that have unfolded over the past couple of months. She couldn’t remember whether she showed the Post reporter her therapy notes or if she merely summarized them for her. When asked if she had a copy of the notes in her possession when she reached out to the newspaper’s tipline via WhatsApp on July 6, Ford couldn’t remember if she had a copy of her notes in her possession or if she reviewed them in her therapist’s office.
Ford has yet to provide a copy of these aforementioned notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee — the only piece of hard evidence she has acknowledged exists.
At the same time that Ford says she can’t remember very recent events, she is claiming very clear knowledge of a traumatizing event that allegedly occurred some thirty years ago, although research and experience shows trauma very frequently clouds memories rather than crystallizing them.
9. Stated Reasons For Coming Forward Are Not Consistent
When Ford’s letter was passed along to Sen. Dianne Feinstein in late July, Ford requested anonymity, but her stated desire to conceal her identity doesn’t match her actions. Mitchell notes: “the person operating the tipline at the Washington Post was the first person other than her therapist or husband to whom she disclosed the identity of her alleged attacker.”
“She testified that she had a ‘sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president,” Mitchell wrote. “She did not contact the Senate, however, because she claims she ‘did not know how to do that.’ She does not explain why she knew how to contact her Congresswoman (Rep. Anna Eshoo) but not her Senator.”
10. Ford’s Polygraph Is Suspect
Ford was unable to recall if she took the polygraph on the day of or the day following her grandmother’s funeral in early August — a memory lapse Mitchell notes is troubling, adding that “It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.”
Polygraphs are so notoriously unreliable that they are inadmissable as evidence in federal courts.
11. The Claimed Psychological Effects Of The Trauma Keep Changing
Ford told the Senate Judiciary Committee she needed the hearing to be delayed because she was afraid of flying due to trauma associated with the alleged attack. When pressed on her travel habits, however, Ford conceded that she does in fact fly frequently, including to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica.
12. Ford’s Lawyers Probably Affected Ford’s Story
When asked if Ford had considered taking up Senate Republicans on their offer to fly out to California, she said that was “unclear,” which could mean that her attorneys failed to communicate a key component of the negotiations.
In a detailed outline of events, Mitchell explained that Ford’s attorney’s behavior throughout the whole ordeal likely significantly affected Ford’s version of events.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
57 visitors
"R achel Mitchell, the experienced sex crimes prosecutor from Arizona who appeared at the behest of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Christine Blasey Ford last week, submitted a five-page memorandum on Sunday to the committee outlining her professional independent assessment of Ford’s testimony.
Mitchell emphasizes at the outset that her assessment was not reviewed or pressured in any way by any of the committee members. While acknowledging that she is a registered Republican, Mitchell also highlights the fact that she is “not a political or partisan person.”
Her conclusion is key:
She’s saying that not only would a reasonable, nonpolitically driven prosecutor decline to prosecute this allegation based on the evidence, but the case would not even meet the preponderance, or a “more likely than not,” standard that is used in the civil law context — a standard far below beyond a reasonable doubt."
I have to agree with her findings. Had this actually made it to a courtroom - the Judge or Jury wouldn't have been able to reach a 'Guilty' verdict. Judge Kavanaugh, however, has been deemed guilty by members of the committee, press and public.
Tell me, who else goes through a job interview like that?
That was in no way a job interview. It was more accurately a inquisition!
With half the interviewers saying "No way" from day 1? NOBODY
Apparently that's what it takes these days to weed out drunkards and gang rapists. The GOP seems to have very low standards for its nominees.
I beleive if it ever made it to a court of law (highly doubtful), the judge would summarily dismiss the case due to failure on the part of prosecution to bring a case with evidence of any type. Many cases with far more evidence have been dismissed for similar reasons.
Give 'em a first class trial followed immediately by a hanging, huh?
So, sketchy accusations aside, if you were sitting in Judge Kavanaugh's chair, it'd be okay to condemn you with rumors and innuendo?
So, it's the FBI's fault? After he'd been investigated how many times prior to receiving this or that appointment/High level job? And the security clearance investigations that go with someof those jobs? And nary a whisper. One might think this is all a set-up.........of course to a logical mind it would.
It seems to be at least in part.....or more likely the Trump regime's fault since they've severely restricted the background check on Kavanaugh from the very beginning and won't even allow the FBI to interview Ford or Kavanaugh. The latest reports are that prior to the current supplemental background check the FBI didn't interview anyone who knew him in high school or college.
Since the hearings concluded dozens of people have come forward with information and the FBI is refusing to interview any of them, not even the ones who are aware that Kavanaugh has currently been engaged in witness tampering.
There have been numerous other prosecutors who have pointed out the flaws and unfairness of Mitchell's analysis.
I'd say that IF NO other evidence was or could be collected Mitchel is correct. However most of the time I think they would do an investigation before resending this decision.
This is all based on the evidence before the committee regarding Dr. Ford's allegation.
most of the time I think they would do an investigation as well FIRST.
Well, they have investigated the Judge several times, for several jobs he's held, seems tisis the first time there was ever a whisper of anythng 'wrong'. Conveniently comes after the left has lost it's collective mind and has thrown, decency, law, etc., etc. to the winds in their 'zero survivors' carpet bombing ways.
It helps if you don't actually investigate much of anything. Apparently the FBI never bothered (or wasn't allowed) to interview anyone who knew him in high school or college.
Right. The more likely answer is that those he knew in high school and college changed their answers when he made the short list for the SC. Unless you want to claim that the FBI didn't do it's job over several administrations with Kavanaugh?
Well, they have investigated the Judge several times, for several jobs he's held, seems tisis the first time there was ever a whisper of anythng 'wrong'. Conveniently comes after the left has lost it's collective mind and has thrown, decency, law, etc., etc. to the winds in their 'zero survivors' carpet bombing ways.
True but THIS accusation was not part of those investigations.
and IMO: BOTH sides have jumped into crazy land and dont see it.
Quite obviously the FBI is dysfunctional during Republican administrations since they didn't do their job well here at all.
Mitchell prosecutes sex crimes. If Ford was going to have a supporter in that room, it would have been Mitchell.
Watching the sleazeballs who defend rapists is probably how she learned to discredit rape victims with irrelevancies, like whether someone who fears flying still flies occasionally.
Lots of people with such fears take anti-anxiety drugs before flying. Duh.
She exposed a bold faced lie which delayed the testimony for 10 days. Those activist lawyers Feinstein sent her to may get disbarred if it turns out they never told Ford that the Committee was willing to fly out to her.
Ford didn't have to fly. They would have come out to her
She seems to be the type that is easily frightened. Also the type that jams on the brakes coming to a yellow light.
WRONG!
Sen. Chuck Grassley said he was willing to fly staffers out to speak to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford about her allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh ahead of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday.
Ford said she was willing to talk with staffers and committee members if they came to California to speak with her, but did not think that was an option. When Grassley said he had made offers to fly out to talk to her, she thanked him but said she did not know at the time what his communications meant.
I remember him announcing that early on. It appears her lawyers kept it from her to delay the hearing
Hmmmm.....sounds like Ford wanted to be heard and questioned in person by both sides of the committee, not just by the Republican staffers who have been stonewalling the other complainants in order to prevent them from testifying. Ford sounds like a very smart cookie in that regard but it was rather amusing that the Republican men all were too terrified to speak to a female sexual assault victim and they all needed a female proxy to do that for them, much like how the Taliban or the Hasidim react to women......it's almost like they think girls have cooties or something. Of course none of those misogynists had any problem speaking directly to another guy, even one who has been credibly accused of gang rape.
Really? Then why did her lawyers tell the Committee that the hearing would have to wait ten days for her to drive across country?
I dunno....you'll have to ask her what schedule conflicts she had. It's not clear what you or the GOP's female proxy think Ford's fear of flying has to do with the sexual assault.
So much for the theory that it was her who wanted to come before the US Senate & the entire nation.
??? Please explain what that has to do with her other obligations. Do you have a copy of her schedule?
You don't know that she had any. I would think that testifying before the US Senate would take priority. Do you disagree?
From the article:
“She testified that she had a ‘sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president,” Mitchell wrote. “She did not contact the Senate, however, because she claims she ‘did not know how to do that.’ She does not explain why she knew how to contact her Congresswoman (Rep. Anna Eshoo) but not her Senator.”
I have no idea what her personal or professional obligations are much less what her schedule is. Apparently you and the dimwits at HotAir have insight which few other people in the country have.
Curious too that you and the GOP's female proxy think that her current schedule is relevant to a sexual assault which took place 36 years ago. Is that a typical method which misogynists use to discredit rape victims? I can't imagine that it's very effective.
If she had a "sense of urgency" to relay information to the US Senate she wouldn't have avoided doing just that for so long. I'll leave it to the objective observer
Yes it could have been to delay, it also could have been they were afraid a simple "interview" would never see the light of day if done in private out of state.Swept under the rug as it were. Why would anyone think that about washington ? eh ? lol
Whichever the reason was it appeared to me just watching the hearing Dr Ford was taken off guard that that legitimate offer had been offered to her back then. I'd say her lawyers did her a disservice and kept it from her and that also may have been illegal as Graham has questioned it may be. I did notice her lawyers were sure squirming around alot about that time of the "cross examination" section of the hearing.
Of course you may be correct, I do try to give the benefit of doubt till shown otherwise.
.
From her testimony her "urgency" varied as time changed. I see that as part of the problem she didn't really decide to come forward all the way or even all at once (or really at all ) she thought about it, started the process and went back and forth even in her own mind whether to make this an issue or not. Watching to see what the world did in the decision making itself. To come forward or not. She finally had little choice, her story and name was leaked.
That is not the most effective way to proceed in anything.
Totally understandable but certainly not the most effective.
Fear verses loyalty to ones since of country.
I certainly do not envy her position. I do not know what I would do. The since of purpose would be pulling but so would the desire to stay the hell out of it.
I doubt I would go public I'd tell the reporters they had the wrong person and go into hiding. I just dont know if this country is worth it these days with all the crap constantly going on anyway. Look half the country believes her half either dont really care or dont believe her in some fashion.
What was accomplished ? Chances are Kavanagh will still be confirmed unless the FBI really turns up some real dirt and for now on Americans will be more divided. Who won ?
I think NO ONE !
.
Maybe, but it's a calculation every victim of a sexual assault makes and the majority of time they decide against reporting it due to the adverse consequences. The fact that conservatives tend to vilify rape victims who do speak out is ample reason for them not to do so.
True but usually the stakes involved for the whole country dont lay in the balance.
This was a very bold move, more was involved than just the people at play.
This was not just another she said he did this with anyone this was one of he most important government appointments of our system in a very contentious time.
I certainly wish it had happened differently. Maybe even then and now. The results of all of this are yet to be seen, however I dont have a good feeling about how this is going to work out.
This and a few other things.
Time will tell.
Ultimately Ford didn't make that "bold move", it was made for her. Even if a key nomination weren't at stake it would be far better if sexual assault victims didn't have very good reasons to fear telling the world what happened to them and who did it.
The big question now is why was the FBI's investigation apparently so severely restricted that it excluded key witnesses? That seems very inappropriate given the importance of a SCOTUS seat.
By the way our pussy-grabbing Fuhrer was ridiculing that sex assault victim tonight. Truly disgusting. What a toxic man he is.
True, I'd say the lesson here is be prepared to finish what you start or just keep thinking with no action. Dr Ford started the ball rolling. What did she expect ? Drop a bomb and have no effect? Maybe however considering the situation that wasn't likely.
Personally I have a feeling the damage done now may be worse than if Kavanagh just had taken the seat.
We'll never know.
I'm not surprised by anything trump says.
I learned long ago this man will say anything he believes will further his agendas. I dont really believe a word he says. I watch what he does.
Its worse than trust and verify , I dont even try to verify what trump says it doesn't matter all that matters is what he actually does and the results he has. I dont like him trust him or want him as our president but listening to him I think is basically a waste of time. If he ever starts telling us the truth more than when it fits his agendas then i'll start listening to him again. Till then why bother tomorrow he's just as likely to say something entirely different if he changes what or how he wants to get something anyway.
Lies too short to try to keep up with HIS reality. I have enough trouble keeping up with the reality the rest of us share.
And yet, she is a successful prosecutor of those committing sex crimes.
Does anyone on the left actually listen to themselves?
Just providing a lil food for thought....
Like all of this, I'd like some proof. I also wonder what all Mitchell got herself or will get out of all of this.
I don't really feel like making the effort at the moment to copy and paste a lot of the criticism of Mitchell's report, but it is out there.
One of the main criticism of Mitchell's conclusion is that she doesn't mention , at all, Kavanaugh's inconsistencies.
Most of her 12 points are personal opinion or a massaging of the facts anyway. Mitchell harps away on "inconsistencies" in Ford's account. I have seen other prosecutors say that most of these "inconsistencies" are virtually meaningless.
I also wonder what all Mitchell got herself or will get out of all of this.
Yep.
Money.
No clue what Mitchell may or may not get, I do not think that is really a factor - just based on the questions Mitchell asked, her intent was to chip away at memory and what brought her (Ford) to the point of speaking out .. Mitchell never got the chance to get a rhythm going in her questioning due to the 5 minute rule..
Had her time been given to her in a chunk - things have been more clear …
Sadly there is no proof to be found .. the Pope could back Ford's story, and there would still be no proof that she is telling the truth .. or visa versa...
and power.
What else would they be .. there is no 'fact' involved in this whole mess - speculation, innuendo, accusations and 30+ year old memories are all there is to go on ...
You can disagree, but still cannot dismiss Mitchell's opinion, based on her years of experience with sexual assault victims, she is qualified to interpret the accusations based on inconsistencies ..
So could the other boy in the room. I doubt he will. Even if true. Or he already would have.
True but questioning the motives behind her words should not and is not out of the question as well.
That's part of the problem with this all. When facts lack, speculation takes over, everyone has an agenda and that is quite evident what a shame this can't be proven one way or another.
Some reality would sure be welcome in this country these days.
What a mess.
Let me guess....on CNN?
And guess what JR their analysis of Mitchell was....opinion.
Judge has said that to his recollection the event never happened .. no one Ford named recalls an event (the house party) that she describes ...
Perhaps the FBI can find the proverbial 'needle in the haystack' …. but without a haystack to search in .. it is not overly likely a needle can be found..
One can question Mitchell's motives, but why - she was asked to do a job .. she did the job asked of her. Offered up her professional opinion based on the information available ……….. do you think she did this for some type of personal gain?
I agree, reality is lacking .. but conjecture is running rampant ..
Could not agree more!
Good morning Colour Me. Wells said. The deck was deliberately stacked against Mitchell from the beginning as far as allowing here to really gain a concise characterization of Dr Ford's testimony. The ranking members of the committee knew that it would extremely difficult for her to do what she was hired to do properly by cutting it up into five minute increments like they did.
Hello, and Good morning Ed... hope you are well..
Do you think the 5 minutes was a calculated move? I never thought of it like that .. but you could be correct .. I figured it just had to do with 'fairness' or at least the perception of 'fairness' .. everyone got their 5 minutes. (even if it was a joke)
I most certainly do believe it was a calculated and premeditated move designed to give the Democrat members of the committee as much leverage as possible in order to do as much damage as possible to scuttle Judge Kavanaugh's nomination.
Does make sense .. the battle cry since Kavanaugh's nomination has been to stop his confirmation in order to save Roe v Wade .. I had that conversation with more than one individual...
There was a father of a mass shooting victim that tried to make Kavanaugh out to be cold and callused .. that back fired!
No it wouldn't, not if it was used for showing that Judge is a liar. You are correct that it could not be used to substantiate the Ford accusation, but it could be used as evidence that Judge perjured himself.
OK then I wonder which one asked to be paid for their testimony in this issue ? That of course I dont really object to you do a job, you get paid. But, I'll bet she got plenty of status and a better future as well (at least in conservatives world)
PS: As I understand this was not done for profit by Dr Ford.
But IMO: Dr. Ford should not have come forward at all if she was not willing to not ask for animinity. That was very unreasonable of her and caused a whole lot of problems for the country.
I have no idea but her role was severely compromised by the 5 minute format. They would have been better off if Mitchell was to use all her time at once either before or after the democrats had their turn.
Progressives don't necessarily do what they do for money. Sinking Kavanaugh would be more important than personal gain for many of them.
Because she was "standing in" for senators they tried to follow "normal" protocol yes her task was compromised. In a trial setting she would have been able to point out more indiscretions. Weather the indiscretions would have disproved anything or proven anything like much will probably never be known.
With all the time passed and all the people with all that they have at stake I seriously doubt we ever really know who what when for certain. Too much at stake is like too big to fail. IMO: NONE of this should have happened like it has. It is just another dividing factor that is tearing Americans apart.
No matter what the outcome.
Good I'd hope the same apply to every human on the planet. I kinda hate to think no one ever does anything they dont get money for.
But, I know what ya mean and that works both ways as well. Many conservatives would give up a substantial amount of money to either stop liberals and progressives, freeze time or better yet, for many turn back time.
Yep money is not everything, especially when you have a lot of it.
.
Agreed
I regard Ideological transgressions far worse than monetary corruption.
But wouldn't that then just be another he said / she said situation? Not sure how you could even begin to verify that. Don't believe that Swetnick can be used for this as it's reported she cannot find anybody who can back up her claims.
Probably... to both to a degree. However without a full investigation I 'd say her guess is as good as anyone's. Probably better than most.
And indiscretions usually are a part of reality especially the more humans involved. Does Not disprove the report in many cases anyway.
How can that be ? A person educated and experienced with enough information can surely see indiscrepancies in the work put before them. Biased or not.
The serious problem I have and expect to always have is the time that has passed, no physical evidence and lack of a proper investigation then and now.
I do believe Dr Ford and wish this all would have been handled differently from day one starting with Dr Ford herself. Desiring to stay anonymous was understandable although not realistic.
I see No winners here instead I see all this as a lose of all to America.
Because all that has really happened is America is even more devided today than yesterday.
.
Both can easily be an affront to a stable government. I just watched a documentary about a conspiracy problem in Montania a while back where the money people conspired and cooperated with buying promises from upcoming political people in order to help them get elected. Once elected these people were obligated (and illegal so so blackmail kept them loyal) to vote the way they had promised to vote on every issue the way the money people demanded of them. It worked (for a time) now there are laws on the books these politicians helped put in place. The main politician was prosecuted, found guilty of campaign finance crimes, fined a large amount and was not reelected the next term.
WTF We the people took a slimy turn there ! Thankfully It was detected, investigated, prosecuted and stopped. (That time)
Here's a very useful way to analyze the issue:
Cool Like I said inconsistencies dont make or break the reality of a story.
One of the moments that caught my attention even more was when Kavanagh was so frustrated he started turning the questions back at he questioner like a 3 year old would. I thought "Ya got to be kidding" Not exactly what I would expect from a professional especially a supposedly mature professional judge in the confirmation of the appointment to the most prestigious judge ship on the planet. Sad !
LOL in fact the satire stuff seeded earlier seems more line with the Kavanagh I saw during his testimony, an angry out of control perhaps drunk. It may have even been funny if this wasn't so damn serious of a deal to begin with. It almost reminds me of watching Senator Gowdy grill hilldabeast and end up sweating like a pig himself before it was over while she sat calm and collected. (Also a sad day.)
The "chart" you linked does show what I felt as I watched the proceedings though. From start to finish.
Thanks for sharing it.
Technology is amazing.
Split Personality found the analysis. I had the same reaction as you to the hearing.
At this point I wonder why the GOP is pushing this given that they've got a seriously tainted and defective nominee, someone who will cause long-term damage to the reputation of SCOTUS. But maybe that's Trump's intent like he's be doing with various government agencies.
IMO: Trump wants people who he believes will support him, his agenda and and his ways to hell if required, all else is pretty much secondary. trump really wants to and intended to make America what HE thinks we should be. Period.
Many agree with him. Some with power.
I dont, that sounds too close to a dictatorship type government to me. I like the checks and balances we are used to. I think that is better than one man calling the shots. Any one man !
Speaking of pawns, the Democrats give you Prof. Ford.
Used, abused and soon to be spit out for a fucked up, partisan liberal agenda. No sacrifice too big for those lying liberal pricks thats for sure. Not as long as its not them being sacrificed.
"Yeah, don't worry Ms Ford. We'll keep it confidential"
- one lying partisan POS or another, who can tell these days
It was her evaluation of the testimony she heard and corroborating evidence, sent to the senate. Funny that now, the left is trying to do another character assassination on the successful sex crimes prosecutor who doesn't believe their star witness that is trying to assassinate the character of Judge Kavanaugh.
She is a republican pawn. She did a disservice to Mrs. Ford
She tried and IMO pretty much failed.
I agree that is why I no longer belong to either fucked up American political party. When they stopped caring about US WE the people I abandoned them just as quickly. Now neither gets my power or my guaranteed vote.
I feel exactly the same way and have never been a member of either party. Unfortunately i made the mistake of donating to each party, via candidates, many years ago. Now i still get BS from both of them every election year.
Two lists i can't get off ..... it sucks.
LOL... Send their advertising back along with a bill for your time of service of dealing with their junk mail. Then turn em into your local dept collector when they dont make payment.
lol
That looks like the face of a woman who was sexually assaulted and been through 36 years of therapy. Even if she had been sad faced and crying the entire time conservatives would have been calling them crocodile tears and claiming she couldn't still be this upset 36 years later so it must be an act.
I watched her testimony, when she was smiling it was half hearted, she didn't want to be there, and it was never during her descriptions of the assault. Your meme is dishonest and attempts to diminish and demean a sexual assault survivor.
I so hope that women remember this in November and every election after that.
If called for jury duty, please get yourself excused.
Thank you,
signed a fellow citizen.
Nothing personal but anyone that sure with this little evidence and investigation I sure wouldn't want anyone like that on a jury determining my future. I doubt anyone would.
Wht though eh it's only a lifetime position of power over millions of Americans for many many years we're talking about so.. Never mind.
Seriously? You're going with "deep state" on this one? Get me your weed dealers number, that must be some good shit you're smoking.
It's too bad that all women don't think like trained seals/s Most can think & reason for themselves
LOL... Why do people always want the crap that they think screwed someone else up?
"I ODed".. "Really On what and where can I get some"..... DUuuu !
LOL PS: Thanks for the chuckel !
Good stuff !
Check your local dispensary ! That's really good stuff.
That's what the GOP is worried about, the fact that women no longer know their proper place as subordinate to men.
It appears to be the fear of Progressives - that women might not vote the way liberals tell them to.
Strange then that the gender gap doesn't favor your side at all. In fact 57% of women want Trump impeached now.
Any poll that starts out with "57% of women" having a certain opinion, only confirms my view that not all women think alike, just like when Trump got 52% of white voting women to cast a vote for him.
Thanks again
Uh oh....you're going to get called a bigot and a sexist now...with a little racist for the heck of it.
Pictures tell a different story.
If she didn't want to be there, and being so educated and all that, she shouldn't have been.
Did you expect all women to think alike? I think it's great though that the majority of women want Trump impeached immediately. That bodes well for the November election.
.
Yeah, what was up with that? There must be something seriously wrong with white folks. Seems like a significant number of them have changed their minds since then.
It sure seems like you did.
Did you expect all women to think alike?
I do.
In some ways I think both genders are "programed" to "think" alike in some instances.
For instance the first time a man sees a woman what is his first thought ? Is it the same for most of us? I think Yes. and I believe that first thought is: Would I have sex with this person.
I'm of the mind that women have the same reaction although different question: Would I have children with this person.
JUST my Opinion but the people I've talked seriously to about this agreed.
I'm still amazed that there were so many women who voted for a misogynist who's freely admitted to sexually assaulting women, much less one who talks in such a truly demeaning way about women. Hopefully the gender gap will be even larger this year and in 2020 than it's historically been. At some point in the very near future there won't be anyone other than bigoted old white guys who will be willing to vote for bigoted old white guys.
At some point in the very near future there won't be anyone other than bigoted old white guys who will be willing to vote for bigoted old white guys.
LOL
I think from the looks of things, we got a while ta go.
Don't forget a educated women who talks in a squeaky little 12 year old voice.
I bet she is a riot on the speaking circuit.
#METOO I was mentally assaulted listening to her ass.