Check out some similar questions!

talaniman · Oct 14, 2018, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Name the ones that have any knowledge whatsoever of the alleged incident. Name them. List them. If they can even say, "I was across the street at the time," or "I came by and worked on the phone." Anyone at all who has any first hand knowledge of this party and has come forward in willingness to testify. Name them. Anyone! If you can't, and you can't, then why do you continue this charade? Once again, it is all a political circus, and a vain effort to maintain political control of the Supreme Court. Liberals don't care one ounce about Dr. Ford, and certainly have no interest in justice. They just want to maintain their grip on the SCOTUS. It is an embarrassment for the entire liberal community, and the real tragedy is that they have become so power hungry that they evidently can't even see it.

One thing I have noticed about some of you guys. You love generalities, but you're short on specifics. Name them! Who are the forty? Who is even one?

There are many instances,

https://www.newstimes.com/local/arti...I-13274370.php

Repubs deemed them not relevant.

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...reporter-says/

Not even a look? You can't get specifics without at least checking it out. Did repubs do that? More like sweeping anything that could be true being swept under a rug to get to a vote. That's cool, as facts may be buried but do they stay buried...time will tell.

jlisenbe · Oct 14, 2018, 12:22 PM

Hello Ex,

Direct testimony under oath IS evidence.

Yes, but it needs corroboration, and her testimony not only did not have any, it was contradicted by her own witnesses.

And, it seemed that Republicans BELIEVED her.

It is NEVER about believing a witness. It should always be about trying to find out if his/her story is credible. It never was.

The ONLY way the previously believable testimony can be obliterated is to demonize ALL the women who're VICTIMS

That is completely untrue. It is no more true to say that than to say that believing CBF is to demonize all men. I'm sorry, but that is total nonsense. This has nothing to do with any general view of men abusing women. Men do despicable things, and that is beyond question, and women sadly bear the brunt of much of it. They deserve our sympathy, our support, and justice, but that cannot translate into the erroneous idea that in order to support abused women, we have to believe EVERY story that comes out. That would result in chaos.

Still waiting to hear the names of all those witnesses who can verify Dr. Ford's story.

jlisenbe · Oct 14, 2018, 12:31 PM

There are many instances,

https://www.newstimes.com/local/arti...I-13274370.php

Yeah. This is really powerful evidence: "I have no direct or indirect knowledge about any of the allegations against him."

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...reporter-says/

"There'd been an email chain of Yale classmates of Kavanaugh talking about 'Will this thing come out?' long before Christine Blasey Ford came forward," Mayer added.She also reports she spoke with another woman, also a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh, who does not know, Deborah Ramirez, the accuser. This unnamed woman "remembers hearing about it that night or the next day," and told Mayer about the incident. Their stories were "identical," Mayer reports.

Yes indeed. Unnamed witness who does not know Ramierez. Alleged email chains of people talking about things. Really powerful stuff. If that was all I had, I wouldn't bother to post it. Like I said, is there anyone out there with first hand knowledge of these events? Answer: NO.

If such an email chain ever existed, don't you think it would be an easy thing to publish it?

talaniman · Oct 14, 2018, 02:22 PM

Whatever you say. Nice repub cover up and slam job.

jlisenbe · Oct 14, 2018, 02:49 PM

Names. At some point you have to have names of witnesses. It's not the republicans fault that you have none. You just don't have a case. The great likelihood is that BK is simply not guilty. You don't like that, but it is just true.

talaniman · Oct 14, 2018, 02:57 PM

The ship has sailed and the deed is done, what more could you ask for?

GOOOO COWBOYS!!!!!!!

jlisenbe · Oct 14, 2018, 03:17 PM

what more could you ask for?

Now you know how I will answer that. The "e" word!

excon · Oct 14, 2018, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Names. At some point you have to have names of witnesses.

Hello again, j:

You can't know the names of all the witnesses at the beginning of an investigation.. You do an investigation to reveal the names of witnesses... This investigation was NOT designed to reveal witnesses or corroboration.. It was designed to shut the libs up.

Didn't work..

excon

jlisenbe · Oct 14, 2018, 06:31 PM

You can't know the names of all the witnesses at the beginning of an investigation.. You do an investigation to reveal the names of witnesses... This investigation was NOT designed to reveal witnesses or corroboration.. It was designed to shut the libs up.

As the old saying goes, "That dog just won't hunt." At some point you have to have a reason to look people up. Dr. Ford gave her testimony, and every witness the FBI interviewed either had no useful knowledge or contradicted her testimony. That was nine people. If they had interviewed fifteen, then libs would say it should have been twenty. If twenty, then it should have been thirty. The truth is, there was NO ONE LEFT to interview. No one who was supposedly at the party was left. Who were they going to talk to, the school janitor? They might as well have interviewed some of us on this board since we know about as much as these 40 so called witnesses some mentioned earlier. I guess they could have interviewed the entire population of the country, but then the libs would have asked about Mexico and Canada.

But here is a question worth pondering. If there are really 40 witnesses out there, wouldn't we have to know their names to know that there are forty of them? How could anyone have said "forty" but not know any names. ESP? A voice from the heavenlies? Angelic visitation?

jlisenbe · Oct 14, 2018, 06:48 PM

Your former candidate, Hillary Clinton, today denied that Bill's relationship with Lewinsky was an abuse of power. I'm sure all the dems will call for an investigation. After all, there is actually some evidence in that case, and it is well within what is evidently the 36 year statute of limitations.

talaniman · Oct 15, 2018, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Your former candidate, Hillary Clinton, today denied that Bill's relationship with Lewinsky was an abuse of power. I'm sure all the dems will call for an investigation. After all, there is actually some evidence in that case, and it is well within what is evidently the 36 year statute of limitations.

That's a non issue that you can look up yourself and see the results. You can also review what the dufus said at the time and relate it to NOW if you wish.

You don't like Hillary and Bill, now what? So what? You should get over that hate Hillary syndrome, as you have had a longer time than us NEVER EVER dufus haters.

talaniman · Oct 15, 2018, 06:30 AM

Think she just got tired of the dufus and his antics?

jlisenbe · Oct 15, 2018, 07:10 AM

You don't like Hillary and Bill, now what? So what? You should get over that hate Hillary syndrome, as you have had a longer time than us NEVER EVER dufus haters.

What a convenient belief for you.

talaniman · Oct 15, 2018, 08:06 AM

As convenient as your EVIDENCE argument? You have the right though, and can hold your nose and worship whatever you choose, that delivers for you. I just think electing a lying cheating dufus to get what you want was a deal with the devil, even if you think the choices was only deals with the devil. I also think your rational for hating Hillary is based on faulty evidence and right wing loony conspiracy theories and spin right up to the phony Benghazi crap you guys cooked up.

That was investigated also, and part of a bigger story, as many civilians and patriots have lost their lives serving their country, but the right only focuses on ONE of them to smear ONE person as part of a decades old smear campaign. Yet all you are concerned about is smearing a good man by your opinion, and have no EVIDENCE that he or Mr. Judge are telling the truth, just THEIR words in a written statement. Your opinion is based on testimonials by his solicitated fan club, and frankly your obsession with the Clintons makes you just another one trick pony that doesn't even comment about repub voter suppression, dark money in politics, or the dufus strange behavior against the evidence of assassinations by Russians and Saudis on foreign soil. No mention of the many dufus sycophants who have had to resign for dastardly behavior at tax payer expense, or cannot run for reelection for dastardly deeds.

You don't want the truth just the convenience of getting what you want and we all pay the price for you getting it. So no more of your fake outrage and Clinton bashing, since that's yesterdays issues and nothing to do with CURRENT EVENTS.

COME ON HOUSTON!

jlisenbe · Oct 15, 2018, 10:26 AM

As convenient as your EVIDENCE argument? You have the right though, and can hold your nose and worship whatever you choose, that delivers for you.

Evidence argument?? Good grief. You have reduced evidence to an argument, kind of like it's a philosophy with which you disagree, as opposed to being the foundation upon which our justice system is based.

I just think electing a lying cheating dufus to get what you want was a deal with the devil, even if you think the choices was only deals with the devil.

Yeah. I guess I should have voted for that fount of moral virtue, Hillary Clinton.

I also think your rational for hating Hillary is based on faulty evidence

Don't look now, but you are appealing to evidence!

I don't hate Hillary. You will note I don't call her ugly names like you do with Trump. I guess you agree with her that her husband did not abuse his presidential power when he had an affair with then 20 year old intern Monica Lewinsky.

the phony Benghazi crap you guys cooked up.

Says the man who was not among those killed attempting to defend the consulate because of Clinton's inattention.

jlisenbe · Oct 15, 2018, 06:55 PM

OK. This one makes me laugh. Can I have just one???

paraclete · Oct 15, 2018, 11:28 PM

Yeah! Right, what a pity you couldn't do the same for your opponent but only he can do that

jlisenbe · Oct 18, 2018, 07:10 AM

faulty evidence and right wing loony conspiracy theories and spin right up to the phony Benghazi crap you guys cooked up.

A federal judge has also bought into the "right wing loony conspiracy theories".

"In a combative exchange at a hearing Friday in Washington, D.C., a federal judge unabashedly accused career State Department officials of lying and signing "clearly false" affidavits to derail a series of lawsuits seeking information about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server and her handling of the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya."

https://michronicleonline.com/2018/1...linton-emails/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sta...ral-judge-says

talaniman · Oct 18, 2018, 09:24 AM