Kavanaugh Accuser Christina Ford Linked To Big Pharma Abortion Pill Maker

a reply to: Spider879

About as relevant as the Democrats using smear tactics to discredit a man who's suppose to be innocent until proven guilty!

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: Spider879

About as relevant as the Democrats using smear tactics to discredit a man who's suppose to be innocent until proven guilty!

Not , they said an investigation is necessary.

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: angeldoll

Actually it's a small background check.

Or you saying we shouldn't investigate this woman only because she's, allegedly, the victim?

Good show, indeed.

no you should.

but you know, eventually we are all dust and there is no crime. there is nothing. i rather you not proceed that far back and find a good solution.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Again, the allegations should be investigated no matter what.

But this just adds more suspicious about the accuser having a political agenda.

it's more than a political agenda, it's also monetary.

You said that as if the two were mutually exclusive.

a reply to: Spider879

It's relevant because it suggests a motive for why this woman is being used to prevent this man's confirmation.
Critical thinking skills are... critical.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: CynConcepts

So you believe this is a six year conspiracy?

Somehow this women knew that trump would be pres AND that he would get a sctus seat AND that it would be kavanaugh that trump choose?

She knew all this six years ago?

Nope, never said that. Yet, since you brought this up, I cannot help but wonder where you get she claimed Kavanaugh did this six years ago? She didn't give out the names to her therapist in 2012. The first record of naming Kavanaugh was in her letter received in July. Then, for someone who wanted anonymity and to be private, for some strange reason...she had her own lie detector test done in August before she was outed?

It simply does not add up.

originally posted by: Elostone
a reply to: Sookiechacha
What it has to do with it is this:
After he's confirmed, any case that comes before the Supreme Court that she is in ANY WAY associated with, he would be forced to recuse himself from those proceedings because of this debacle we are enduring now.
Don't schools teach Government classes anymore?

Nobody can FORCE a Supreme Court Justice to recuse themselves. Kavanaugh has already said, when asked during the hearings, if he will recuse himself, and he said "No".

Justice Thomas and his wife are highly invested in several issues that came before the court. There was outcry for Justice Thomas to recuse himself, but he refused.

Once Kavanaugh is confirmed, there is no one that can force him to recuse himself from any case.

a reply to: shawmanfromny>>> So she stands to make a ton of money if she prevents him from being sworn in, so what? And her having apparent expert help organizing her story, why is that suspicious? Maybe her past isn't stellar, what right do we have to go back that far to investigate it? She set out to smear Kavanaugh and she's the one who may end up getting smeared by her own actions.

a reply to: CynConcepts

She didn't give out the names to her therapist in 2012.

So you believe she told her therapist about an actually assault but you think that she lied about who did it?

Because hurting kavanaugh is more important to her than bringing her actual assailant to justice?

Talk about not adding up.

But you probably believe any nasty thing you hear if it's said abut a lib, right?

For the record I wouldn't mind kavanaugh being a scotus. Not one bit.



But deciding that an accuser is a liar just because you don't like their politics is just as bad as when the libs believed her just because they don't like kavanaughs politics.

The two parties are very similar in this way, don't you agree?

Innocent until proven guilty should apply both to kavanaugh and christina.

Let the courts decide I say.

Christine has called for an fbi investigation. Has kavanaugh?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: CynConcepts

She didn't give out the names to her therapist in 2012.

So you believe she told her therapist about an actually assault but you think that she lied about who did it?

Is this not possible?

Because hurting kavanaugh is more important to her than bringing her actual assailant to justice?

So now you’re speaking for her? How would you possibly know what’s more or less important?

But you probably believe any nasty thing you hear if it's said abut a lib, right?

You can blame the alt-left MSM for that and their push to hating Trump. It just works both ways.

For the record I wouldn't mind kavanaugh being a scotus. Not one bit.

But deciding that an accuser is a liar just because you don't like their politics is just as bad as when the libs believed her just because they don't like kavanaughs politics.

The thing is either her or Kavanaugh’s lying. And she’s the only one so far to raise doubts about the veracity of the story.

Afraid to fly?

Yea, right.

Christine has called for an fbi investigation. Has kavanaugh?

Why in the hell should he call for an investigation? To prove he’s innocent?

I’m telling you, you guys are insane.

Please read the constitution once in your life.

a reply to: vinifalou

Is this not possible?

Sure it is. Just not probable. Why do you think this women whom you never met would do this?

So now you’re speaking for her? How would you possibly know what’s more or less important?

I'm assuming she is a normal person. A normal person would go after the person that attacked them.

You can blame the alt-left MSM for that and their push to hating Trump. It just works both ways.

No I blame the people that fall for the propaganda that the right and left media are feeding them.

Why in the hell should he call for an investigation? To prove he’s innocent?

Because it would be the smart play.

a reply to: vinifalou

I’m telling you, you guys are insane.

Who do you even think I am?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Rules for the removal of a Supreme Court Justice from pending cases:

3.03. (a) If a motion is filed seeking disqualification, recusal, or determination of constitutional or statutory incompetence of a Supreme Court justice, the justice in question shall act promptly by written order and either grant or deny the motion. If the motion is denied, the justice shall state in writing the grounds upon which he or she denies the motion. If the justice denies the motion, the movant, within twenty-one days of entry of the order, may file a motion for court review, which shall be determined promptly by the remaining justices upon a de novo standard of review.

Rule 10B

Heres a question, how did she get to Hawaii if she is afraid to fly?

a reply to: Elostone


Hey listen, I appreciate your efforts, but that link describes a process within the Tennessee State Court System, not the Supreme Court of the Untied States.

As far as I know there is no protocol to force the recusal of a Supreme Court Justice from any case.

Like I said, Justice Thomas and his wife were extremely vested in issues that did come before his court, and he refused to recuse himself from an ACA case, when asked. So did Justice Kagan. Justice Scalia refused to recuse himself from Dick Cheney's case.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Obviously she went in a spaceship.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: CynConcepts

She didn't give out the names to her therapist in 2012.

So you believe she told her therapist about an actually assault but you think that she lied about who did it?

Because hurting kavanaugh is more important to her than bringing her actual assailant to justice?

Talk about not adding up.

It has been stated over and over again that Ford did not provide any specific names in 2012. I cannot tell what is more important to her? She revealed this experience in 2012 and did not seek justice back then, did she? She was no longer a young 15 year old in 2012. So, yes, it does seem she has another reason for naming Kavanaugh now.

But you probably believe any nasty thing you hear if it's said abut a lib, right?

For the record I wouldn't mind kavanaugh being a scotus. Not one bit.

Actually, I have been more liberal most of my life, it is just since 2012 that I had realized that neither party in politics even represents me anymore. I actually voted for Obama! So, no, I don't believe everything that is said about a lib or repub based on politics.

I will admit that I do have experience biases, as we all do, and that will always direct my queries in seeking the truth. That is naturally human nature.

But deciding that an accuser is a liar just because you don't like their politics is just as bad as when the libs believed her just because they don't like kavanaughs politics.

The two parties are very similar in this way, don't you agree?

Innocent until proven guilty should apply both to kavanaugh and christina.

Exactly, as I had stated above. We seem to be in agreement there. My personal belief that they both are telling their own truths still is simply an opinion.

Let the courts decide I say.

Christine has called for an fbi investigation. Has kavanaugh?

Obviously, I have shared the facts over and over again. The FBI does not handle an investigation of this public nature. The senate committee actually has investigators for this nature regarding the vote. So yes, Kavanaugh has seeked this to be investigated and has already been questioned. They are just attempting to question Ford now, the actual accuser.

More recently, the local/state of Maryland police has offered to investigate this incident just as soon as Ford will file a formal complaint. This is in their jurisdiction and where an official criminal investigation would be done. So, why her nor her attorney has contacted them to exact justice for her attack is beyond my comprehension.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Obviously she went in a spaceship.

a reply to: CynConcepts

She revealed this experience in 2012 and did not seek justice back then, did she?

A lot of assault victims don't.

I didn't....reason was shame and the fact that most people didn't believe me when I told them when it happened...

It was over 20 years ago but these threads have me thinking about that person who assaulted me.
If I saw them about to become potus or scotus It might stir up all those old feelings and I might come forward in order to stop them.


I am not on her side I am neutral in this.
I think that they are both innocent until proven guilty.

Let the courts decide.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

So it's gone from she's a liar to she's telling the truth but it was a guy that looks like kavanaugh?


You do realize how dumb that sounds, right?

It's possible either way, since none of us reslly knows. I doubt it was Kavanaugh though. It's dumb to you probably because some people are unwilling to face what certain people are willing to do for their sacred cow, such as abortion rights and abortion medications.