Senator Grassley Sends Criminal Referral to FBI - Investigate This Brett Kavanaugh Accuser.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Grambler

Absolutely I am hypothesizing?

And sure, if the evidence disproves it or Keyser or Ford end up being someplace else on July 1st, then it obviously doesn't hold water.

But as of now, it is hitting all cylinders, people she said were there comporting with Kavanuagh's calendar and "timmy's" home beside Keyser's public pool and being a modest one bathroom townhouse.

Will be interesting to see what the FBI come up with in interviews.

Now despite this, all of the supposed attendees of this party say it never happened

That is the relevant part

Since you have said this a few times before and I don't think you are a stupid person, would you mind answering the following:

Can you see the difference between saying "I do not remember this happening"
vs.
Saying "It never happened"
?

Hint, Leyland Keyser said she does not remember this event, but she also says she believes Dr. Ford's account.

How can you say that she believes Ford's account? She gave sworn testimony that she has never met Kavanaugh! The only thing she can believe is that Ford was assaulted by someone at a party...but either Keyser or Kavanaugh were not present when it occurred.

Thus...Ford's account begins to fall apart again.

Well, according to her life-long, best friend, Christine Ford,...Leland Keyser has "health problems" (read MENTAL health problems).

PROJECTING Defense....obvious democratic coaching technique played.

a reply to: soberbacchus

I disagree in your interpretation of how to define evidence

An accusation is not evidence to me

But that’s not important

The point is all we have is her testimony and accusation and it seems you agree that is not enough to judge Kavanagh as if he was guilty

So I assume that even if you don’t want Kavanaugh on the court for other reasons, if the fbi does not produce any more evidence of his guilt, you would be against people saying not to confirm him based on these allegations

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Grambler

Absolutely I am hypothesizing?

And sure, if the evidence disproves it or Keyser or Ford end up being someplace else on July 1st, then it obviously doesn't hold water.

But as of now, it is hitting all cylinders, people she said were there comporting with Kavanuagh's calendar and "timmy's" home beside Keyser's public pool and being a modest one bathroom townhouse.

Will be interesting to see what the FBI come up with in interviews.

Now despite this, all of the supposed attendees of this party say it never happened

That is the relevant part

Since you have said this a few times before and I don't think you are a stupid person, would you mind answering the following:

Can you see the difference between saying "I do not remember this happening"
vs.
Saying "It never happened"
?

Hint, Leyland Keyser said she does not remember this event, but she also says she believes Dr. Ford's account.

How can you say that she believes Ford's account? She gave sworn testimony that she has never met Kavanaugh!

Again, that is idiotic and dishonest.

Ask me under penalty of perjury if I ever met somebody I currently do not know at a party in HS and I could only answer "I have no memory of meeting that person"

She did not state "I have never met kavenaugh"
She stated:
"simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford."

This does not exclude the possibility that she was at a party with the two of them. It simply says she "has no recollection" of it.

a reply to: carewemust

Because some senators want him in does not prove or disprove anything..I thought all these people were the "swamp" they have an agenda, just like the Dems.
Only BK and CF really know.
I don't pretend to know..short of a confession, there is no way to definitively prove or disprove anything.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Aside from the accusation which is technically evidence, there is zero evidence. Her testimony itself contradicts itself.

a reply to: soberbacchus

But her statement supports Kavanaugh (not proves), and offers zero support to Ford. To claim otherwise is foolish.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Highlights Weaknesses In Ford Testimony, Exonerates Kavanaugh

a reply to: soberbacchus

That Keyser believes Dr Ford is irrelevant.
In this case, she says she has never even met Kavanaugh. Do you understand that?
A small party of 6 people in one room - or however many Dr Ford's ever-changing count was - and Keyser testifies she has never met Kavanaugh. That is the same as saying the party never happened. If she never met him, she was never at a small gathering of 6 people with him.
Think about it - Dr Ford says she went upstairs to the bathroom, leaving the small group. Kavanaugh and Judge apparently followed her and pushed her in a room and turned the music up. Sitting downstairs were the rest including Keyser, allegedly.

Please don't tell me the next thing Keyser sees or hears about is Dr Ford running out in a panic and leaving her there and doesn't even remember meeting Kavanaugh. It's beyond a reasonable possibility. Do you also not think she'd be asking - where has my friend gone?

Keep in mind we learned that Dr Ford and Keyser have been speaking about this and despite that she still can't get Keyser to corroborate.

I'm afraid it's looking more and more likely that Dr Ford is just a brazen liar.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

I disagree in your interpretation of how to define evidence

An accusation is not evidence to me

Testimony from witnesses is some of the most powerful "evidence" there is in a court of law.

By ANY legal or rational definition, witness testimony is evidence.

So I assume that even if you don’t want Kavanaugh on the court for other reasons, if the fbi does not produce any more evidence of his guilt, you would be against people saying not to confirm him based on these allegations

Correct. The evidence as it stands now is insufficient to deny his nomination based on the sexual assault allegations.

That said, I do believe he has disqualified himself in a multitude of ways absent these allegations.

For example friends and classmates have come forward to say that they thought he lied in his Senate testimony about his drinking.

That is not as salacious or headline grabbing as sexual assault, but dishonesty is certainly a disqualifier for a SCOTUS nominee IMO.

I would have been much more satisfied if Kavenaugh simply said that there were times he might have drank to excess and that those days are long behind him, but the whole "choir boy" bit really provoked some screams of BS by his friends and classmates that knew him.

That said, the GOP are long past evaluating Trump's nominees for honesty.
He is also a fierce partisan.
That is a sad pivot for SCOTUS judicial nominations IMO.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

That Keyser believes Dr Ford is irrelevant.
In this case, she says she has never even met Kavanaugh.

False.

Show me the precise quote.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

That Keyser believes Dr Ford is irrelevant.
In this case, she says she has never even met Kavanaugh.

False.

Show me the precise quote.

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” Mr. Walsh said.

OK?

a reply to: soberbacchus

Look we all have our personal opinions

I don’t think him saying he isn’t a bad drinker is disproved by some college classmates

Bye, funny hey also say they saw him drunk but never sexually aggressive. Funny they didn’t come forward to say that when he was accused, but felt the need to say he was a drunk after hearing him

But anyways, I don’t care at all how he characterizes his drinking bs others

The important thing is you agree he shouldn’t have the sexual assault allegations held against him if no more evidence arises

This does not exclude the possibility that she was at a party with the two of them. It simply says she "has no recollection" of it.

I have no recollection of seeing Bigfoot at any party I've ever been to, but I suppose it is possible.... And if there was a Bigfoot there, I'm sure he likely grabbed somebody and groped her.

This is how absurd this sounds....

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I really hope the FBI talks more with the Kavanaugh look alike she dated and said that he was the one who introduced her to Kavanaugh, yet she did not want to say his name or drag him into this. Hmmm...saying she knew him, went out with him, he introduced her to Kav, and then says after a couple of months they stopped seeing each other except occasional run ins at the country club where he was a member.

a reply to: UKTruth

I'll ask you the same question.

Under oath and penalty of perjury what is the difference between:

"I do not recall"

and

"It never happened"

OR

"I have no recollection of meeting that person"

and

"I have never met that person"


HINT:
One answer comes with certainty that can send you to jail if your statement is proved false, the other affords for that your memory from 30 years ago might not include a complete roster of everyone who attended HS parties you attended.

Keyser never said that she "never met Kavanaugh"
that is a factually false claim.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Do you have any recollection of raping multiple women in a satanic ritual and then killing them?

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Grambler

Absolutely I am hypothesizing?

And sure, if the evidence disproves it or Keyser or Ford end up being someplace else on July 1st, then it obviously doesn't hold water.

But as of now, it is hitting all cylinders, people she said were there comporting with Kavanuagh's calendar and "timmy's" home beside Keyser's public pool and being a modest one bathroom townhouse.

Will be interesting to see what the FBI come up with in interviews.

Now despite this, all of the supposed attendees of this party say it never happened

That is the relevant part

Since you have said this a few times before and I don't think you are a stupid person, would you mind answering the following:

Can you see the difference between saying "I do not remember this happening"
vs.
Saying "It never happened"
?

Hint, Leyland Keyser said she does not remember this event, but she also says she believes Dr. Ford's account.

How can you say that she believes Ford's account? She gave sworn testimony that she has never met Kavanaugh! The only thing she can believe is that Ford was assaulted by someone at a party...but either Keyser or Kavanaugh were not present when it occurred.

Thus...Ford's account begins to fall apart again.

Well, according to her life-long, best friend, Christine Ford,...Leland Keyser has "health problems" (read MENTAL health problems).

PROJECTING Defense....obvious democratic coaching technique played.

Right.
Double-edged sword.
Ford's 'friend' with "health problems" also believes Ford, without any corroborating evidence provided (personal or otherwise).

Perhaps Keyser's "health problems" include TDS.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh

Sorry fella - if you want to believe Keyser actually meant she had met Kavanaugh but doesn't know him AND that she met him at a party of 6 people, but doesn't remember at all - despite her friend rushing out and disappearing (as a 15 year old!) - that's up to you.

The obvious conclusion is that Dr Ford is lying.

originally posted by: Gazrok

This does not exclude the possibility that she was at a party with the two of them. It simply says she "has no recollection" of it.

I have no recollection of seeing Bigfoot at any party I've ever been to, but I suppose it is possible.... And if there was a Bigfoot there, I'm sure he likely grabbed somebody and groped her.

This is how absurd this sounds....

It sounds absurd because it assumes meeting Brett Kavenaugh would be as memorable as meeting a Sasquatch.

I know Kavenaugh thinks he was all that in HS, but that seems a bit much.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh

Sorry fella - if you want to believe Keyser actually meant she had met Kavanaugh but doesn't know him

Not sure why you have to pretzel her statement to get you what you need here.

She does not know him (present tense)
She does not remember meeting him at a party 30 years ago.

That does not mean she never met him.

Most people have minds that can operate absent ideological malformations.

Keyser's statement says exactly what it says.