Trump's SCOTUS

[Speaker to Animals]

The current Dem narrative is that Kavanaugh lied about being a virgin and how many beers he drank, so he lied under oath and should be impeached if he is confirmed.

If he did lie then he should certainly not be confirmed.

That is perjury too.

[C-Mag]

Pro tip: Proof is never derived from he-said she-said.

We got folks here as nutty as the Christine Ford believers who think their strong feelings paired with unfounded allegations of third-parties miraculously produces “proof”, but it doesn’t.

NO, but when determining what the likely truth is taking in all the testimony and evidence is the way to go.

Swetnick says she was in college going to these High School parties where gang bangs were typical. She continued to go back to them multiple times.

If I'm the judge or jury I wonder: Why is she continually going back to parties where there are gang bangs?

Then I have testimony from a former boyfriend that says: Swetnick liked getting every oriface filled at the same time. Suddenly it makes sense of why a college girl would frequent high school gang bang parties.

[PartyOf5]

i agree. my comment was in reference to the recent news last night that dr. ford, according to her ex-boyfriend, had previously coached people how to do a polygraph in direct contradiction to her testimony

It's possible he's lying. A lot of these people coming forward have no more proof of their claims than Ford herself. If you get enough people to talk, eventually you should be able to at least get a better picture of the truth. In Ford's case, since she has ZERO evidence and ZERO corroborating witnesses, her story is not very believable. If the person she supposedly trained to take a polygraph comes forward, then you have a good idea it is the truth. If she did indeed fraudulently use his credit card, there may be records of that from the CC company.

[DBTrek]

The current Dem narrative is that Kavanaugh lied about being a virgin and how many beers he drank, so he lied under oath and should be impeached if he is confirmed.

Right, but the Dems are a bunch of totalitarian, Marxist, fake rape accusers with no regard for the rule of law when it gets in their way. The goal isn’t to emulate them by adopting the same crazy ethos to defend Kavanaugh. There’s no hard evidence (aka proof) that she was raped, and no hard evidence she lied. There’s a lot of emotional motherfuckers citing this witness or that as “proof” that lies were told, but a witness calling someone else a liar isn’t proof of jack.

We need a little more “T” from our INTPs, because there’s a lot of “F” in this thread.

[Speaker to Animals]

There is irrefutable evidence that she lied.

[DBTrek]

In Ford's case, since she has ZERO evidence and ZERO corroborating witnesses, her story is not very believable.

Precisely. Her story is not believable, yet we have the Democratic Party, the media, and countless raging social media morons, insisting otherwise 24/7.

That’s the problem here. Half the nation (or more) want mob rule based on the outrage of Democrats and the uncorroborated testimony of anyone-but-a-white-guy. That’s not good.

[DBTrek]

There is irrefutable evidence that she lied.

The Earth is flat. We never went to the moon.

People can say anything. That doesn’t constitute proof.

[C-Mag]

The current Dem narrative is that Kavanaugh lied about being a virgin and how many beers he drank, so he lied under oath and should be impeached if he is confirmed.

Right, but the Dems are a bunch of totalitarian, Marxist, fake rape accusers with no regard for the rule of law when it gets in their way. The goal isn’t to emulate them by adopting the same crazy ethos to defend Kavanaugh. There’s no hard evidence (aka proof) that she was raped, and no hard evidence she lied. There’s a lot of emotional motherfuckers citing this witness or that as “proof” that lies were told, but a witness calling someone else a liar isn’t proof of jack.

We need a little more “T” from our INTPs, because there’s a lot of “F” in this thread.

+1
We here at Hashwerks all want to see the rule of law followed, proper proof of crimes, etc.

IMO, there's plenty of proof that she's lying in several areas. Whether it chargeable is another issue. For example, she used the excuse that she's afraid of flying, but her history of travel and the testimony of others say she lied. That wasn't under oath, so may not be able to charge her there.

Is there a Lawyer in the house that can tell me what that does to the veracity of her other statements ?

Anyone?
Anyone?
Esquire, Anyone?

[DBTrek]

She flew.
Prove she didn’t feel fear while flying.
Derp.

[C-Mag]