Also, Dr. Ford's polygraph report has been released, dated August 10th after the examination on August 7th. Obviously not cleaned up because it includes Dr. Ford's very sloppy original handwritten statement on a yellow legal pad:
Also, Dr. Ford's polygraph report has been released, dated August 10th after the examination on August 7th. Obviously not cleaned up because it includes Dr. Ford's very sloppy original handwritten statement on a yellow legal pad:
The Fokus wrote:
Don't Care wrote:
Does any of this have anything to do with his ability to do his job? When it does, et back to me.
So had he murdered someone a number of years ago and was able to do his job currently he's a go for confirmation?
You mean like Hillary??? Gosh you Democrats are so biased I almost feel sorry for you. Dipsh*t! Yeah, there's 78 coincidences , duh!!!!! HRC ate it Election Day as she had numerous people harassed and threatened who were against her. Do your research dipsh*t!
Hardloper wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Nope. Provide more so I can go find out that it's not true.
This is the story I'm talking about. I'm not trying to make it about Hillary BTW, it is just the example that came to mind.
https://www.npr.org/2016/11/03/500480069/the-story-behind-a-campaign-line-did-clinton-laugh-at-a-rape-victim
Flagpole ignores anything against Hillary Clinton and says "she wasn't charged", so that makes her innocent. So then, the same rules apply to Donald Trump.
Flagpole wrote:
The Fokus wrote:
Who has filed charges against Kavanaugh?
Actually it appears an unnamed person is in contact with a county in Maryland and is deciding whether or not to file charges. The person has accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, and the county is looking to see if this indeed happened in their county. It is also unclear is this person is Avenatti's client or a 4th accuser.
flagpole has gone off the deep end.
March, wait till Summer. Summer, wait till Fall. Fall, wait till ???
What a degenerate loser.
Awsi Dooger wrote:
Also, Dr. Ford's polygraph report has been released, dated August 10th after the examination on August 7th. Obviously not cleaned up because it includes Dr. Ford's very sloppy original handwritten statement on a yellow legal pad:
https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1045017188929687552
Polygraph = ouija board
Literal pseudoscience BS
XY h wrote:
How many of you would pass through the scrutiny that a potential SCOTUS must?
Apparently, Neil Gorsuch had not problem with passing through the scrutiny.
Hardloper wrote:
I'm not trying to make it about Hillary...
... did-clinton-laugh-at-a-rape-victim
The expect, "But Hillary . . . " defense. The usual Hardloper defensive when he has lost.
WHAT THE HEY?: Why have you suddenly crawled out of the woodwork (troll hole) and started posting in this thread using your real name? You have previously stated you "rarely, if ever" post here. Now you seem to have the need to post a lot...and post DURING you work day? You do have a full-time job. Your employer may be watching. Keep safe. Avoid posting while at work.
Hardloper wrote:
johnny99 wrote:
You're right. I forgot about that.
I know that they generally are not admissable in court and I don't know how reliable they are, but just the fact that she was willing to take one speaks volumes about her credibility here.
No it doesn't. The test was administered in private by her lawyer, thus we don't know if it was administered properly and obviously would have been thrown out if the "results" didn't come out the way they wanted. Remember that infamous story where Hillary Clinton used the polygraph tactic to get her guilty client off a rape charge by "passing" the test which "forever destroyed [her] faith in polygraphs"...
Well, I said I don't know how reliable they are.
Here, Ford's test was administered by a retired FBI agent, not by her lawyer. I don't know what you mean by saying it "obviously would have been thrown out if the 'results' didn't come out the way they wanted." I suppose if Ford had failed the polygraph, her attorney could have tried to keep it a secret, but that's taking a real risk. If that was to somehow come out (and let's face it, it's pretty hard to keep secrets in these situations), Dr. Ford's credibility is shot and that's all she really has here. So, no, I don't think it would have been buried if she failed. I think that her attorney was convinced that she was being truthful and that she would pass it, and that is what happened.
And since you play fast and loose with facts, I'll point out that Clinton didn't get her guilty client off in that rape case, he plead to a lesser charge. But your quote about her losing faith in polygraphs is more or less accurate.
NEW YORK TIMES: "None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/us/politics/julie-swetnick-avenatti-kavenaugh.html
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
NEW YORK TIMES: "None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/us/politics/julie-swetnick-avenatti-kavenaugh.html
your new argument is that if it isn't in the NYT...it's not true?
great! I'll remind you of that the next time you bleat about the liberal media.
The Simpleton>>>Fokus wrote:
The Fokus wrote:
So had he murdered someone a number of years ago and was able to do his job currently he's a go for confirmation?
You mean like Hillary??? Gosh you Democrats are so biased I almost feel sorry for you. Dipsh*t! Yeah, there's 78 coincidences , duh!!!!! HRC ate it Election Day as she had numerous people harassed and threatened who were against her. Do your research dipsh*t!
"you Democrats" LOL
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
NEW YORK TIMES: "None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview."
nytimes com
What! Your source is Trump's "failing" New York Times. Can you please post a link to Trump's Tweet declaring them a legitimate news source?
Or, was that claim by Trump just another one of his lies.
here's what it's come to - women telling their daughters to lie back and think of Donald Trump
agip wrote:
here's what it's come to - women telling their daughters to lie back and think of Donald Trump
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-supporter-on-msnbc-tells-her-daughters-that-groping-is-no-big-deal/
Key word: Montana
the religious right continues to shame itself: Every chance they get, they favor the assaulter, the liar, the cheater, the con man, the fraud, the jerk.
what is it with those christians? they clearly don't take their religion seriously. or it is perverting them. I don't know.
Trollminator wrote:
Sweet, Sweet Brian wrote:
You got a lot of time on your hands, huh, bro.
Hey broheem, must take you a long time to get through 280 character posts... do you need 20min breaks in between to let your low IQ brain settle down? It’s ok, there are others like you
Says the guy who is on here 24 hours a day.
agip wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
NEW YORK TIMES: "None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/us/politics/julie-swetnick-avenatti-kavenaugh.htmlyour new argument is that if it isn't in the NYT...it's not true?
great! I'll remind you of that the next time you bleat about the liberal media.
The biggest take is that Julie Swetnick supposedly knew girls were being raped by trains of boys at these parties but kept on going to them. And even though countless girls got raped at these parties, nobody talked and this is the first time this gets into the open?
You must be a moran to believe this garbage.
This woman is a liar.
Awsi Dooger wrote:
ffgtrdf wrote:
test
Test indeed. I had a couple of posts that didn't seem to go through. No big deal.
Very suspicious that Mark Judge is hiding out at a beach house like a coward. Now his ex-girlfriend has come forward to say Judge is lying. She remembers him ashamedly telling her about taking turns with other guys having sex with a drunk woman. Now, Kavanaugh wasn't named but it lends credibility to the type of conduct going on at the time, as described by the new accuser from Avenatti:
https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/status/1045014236555030530
Is she willing to say this under oath?
If not....NEXT.
but hillary . . . wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
I'm not trying to make it about Hillary...
... did-clinton-laugh-at-a-rape-victim
The expect, "But Hillary . . . " defense. The usual Hardloper defensive when he has lost.
WHAT THE HEY?: Why have you suddenly crawled out of the woodwork (troll hole) and started posting in this thread using your real name? You have previously stated you "rarely, if ever" post here. Now you seem to have the need to post a lot...and post DURING you work day? You do have a full-time job. Your employer may be watching. Keep safe. Avoid posting while at work.
Hi Flagpole.
Why not post under Flagpole instead.
Harambe wrote:
Awsi Dooger wrote:
Also, Dr. Ford's polygraph report has been released, dated August 10th after the examination on August 7th. Obviously not cleaned up because it includes Dr. Ford's very sloppy original handwritten statement on a yellow legal pad:
https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1045017188929687552Polygraph = ouija board
Literal pseudoscience BS
This ^
It is sickening that people judge other people by some black box that can only measure physiological reactions and has absolutely no way to determine anything at all about truth.