Originally posted by @philokaliaAndy doesn't waste his time on mediocre cowards.
Wow, look at this internet tough guy -- we're better all watch out or Handy Andy will take a break from his fulfilling & busy life to insult us.
i'm quakin' in mah boots.
Originally posted by @wolfe63Trump's calling her credible.
I watched the first two and a half hours of what I expected to be a theatric spectacle.
However, my impression: The "15 year old girl" within the grown-up Professor, exuded nothing but fear and honesty.
Thus, I'm more convinced: A "blacked-out" Brett Kavanaugh could have done this. Will he now continue the charade, one of pubescent piety?
I guess he is covering all bases.
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyThank you Tom for your insight.
She seemed credible and sincere. Kavanaugh seemed credible and sincere. Lindsey Graham seemed credible and sincere.
What's your opinion on the sun rising tomorrow?
The post that was quoted here has been removedAlright, so this is a much lower standard...
Basically, if someone can simply convincingly hold together a fragment of a story without any details against someone, they should be disqualified from office?
Is that what you are saying?
OR what is the standard, Duchy?
The post that was quoted here has been removedI already stated that it doesn't mean she lied about everything, but it shows she is dishonest and that takes away from her credibility. If a person (especially a psychologist) wants to be believed they should not lie about things that are completely optional and for manipulation purposes only.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/juanita-broaddrick-brett-kavanaugh_us_5bad86ffe4b0b4d308d17cd7
The fact that nobody said they heard about Blasey’s assault around the time it occurred, Broaddrick said, is why she finds it unbelievable. “You compare that with mine ― data, dates, people I told, injuries,” she said, referring to her claim that Clinton bit her lip.
“I think she’s casting a very dark shadow on real victims,” Broaddrick said.
Originally posted by @philokaliaPeople who lie under oath should not be on the Supreme Court
Alright, so this is a much lower standard...
Basically, if someone can simply convincingly hold together a fragment of a story without any details against someone, they should be disqualified from office?
Is that what you are saying?
OR what is the standard, Duchy?
Originally posted by @athousandyoungLawyers who don't lie? LOL!
People who lie under oath should not be on the Supreme Court