Woman who claimed Justice Kavanaugh raped her now admits they’ve never even met.

I refused liquor in high school due to playing sports. I wonder if my former team mates tell lies that I was drunk? LMAO Proof is not some kid bragging in a year book.

 

non sequitur After accusing me too.

 

I see sour grapes....WINNING!

 

Her statement about the materiality came in her referral to the AR Bar trying to explain it and refute much of the reporting that was going on then and people are still convinced.

Hofstra Law Review

Effectively taking judicial notice of the "immateriality" spin which
Clinton defenders had put on that ruling, Judge Wright later expressly
held that "contrary to numerous assertions, this Court did not rule that
evidence of the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant or immaterial to the issues
in plaintiff's case."' Judge Wright repeated "that such evidence
might have been relevant to plaintiff's case," probative to "'establish,
among other things, intent, absence of mistake, motive, and habit on the
part of the President."'79
https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol28/iss2/7/?utm_source=scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol28/iss2/7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

 

And the old go to strawman attempt to turn the tables........vintage but never works for you. You will likely need staff help to get away from this one as well.

 

I am right here waiting for you to refute the facts as I posted or are you just going to continue to blow it out your arse with your false accusations. What was conflated and be specific.

 

Copying someone that actually knows how to use the term to expose juvenile victim behaviour, while somewhat satisfying, is still a fail if you are unable to be successful in applying context. <- Read it multiple times until it makes sense for you.

 

Sure you are......the side step is a go to move but old and only garners minimal success.

 

It's hard to handle when it's easy to expose revisionist historical spin.

 

She did not have to testify. She agreed to testify and nobody forced her. It was not a BS letter and she was credible because there was a third person in the room and the idea of a made-up story makes no sense. She is certainly not stupid. Let's not forget that Justice
Kavanaugh was a blackout drunk according to his roommate. His yearbook was indicative of sexual oriented parties, not that
there is anything wrong with sexual drinking parties at that age or any age. Potential witnesses either didn't remember any incident as she described because they weren't there. Also, witnesses who may remember the times are now older with families and didn't want to go through the death threats and other malicious stuff that was sure to come. Can't blame them.
There is almost no way that forced sex can be proven in a court unless there is physical evidence. The hearing was not a courtroom
and those Republicans decided to support Trump's nominee for political reasons
in my opinion.

 

I'm not really a big fan of religion but gotta say, Trump seemed to enter the scene just in the nick of time when we needed him most to chase away the evil democrat socialists from the door. If not for him, this country would be
In serious condition under Hillary who would have transformed it into a socialist hellhole of poverty with 100 different nationalities fighting each other for control.

 

He said, "Remember when we were told to believe women?" He did not refer to these particular women and that is why I commented.

 

Correct....it is proof however of what you wrote at that time. Was he making false entries back then but gave the Book to the Committee as proof of his choir boy image?

 

Because if he admitted to true extent to which he was a legless drunk at the relevant time, that would add some weight to what the alleged victim was saying. No, he well knew, or had been schooled, that he had to down play it to abate that likelihood.

 

He's the right man for the times.

And long overdue.

 

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I thought the whole thing was a phony political stunt to discredit a good man.

 

That was my understanding as well.

These findings seem to back that up.

 

not one thing you posted is true
who was that third person in the room that collaborated the sexual assault?
please give those quotes from the year book that referred to as you put it "sexual oriented parties"
all we have is this one women's word a women that couldn't tell you when and where the alleged assault took place how she got to the party how she got home from the party who invited her to the party but she sure in the hell remembered she only had one beer

If I remember a party enough to be able to tell you how many beers I had at that party I sure in the hell could tell you when and were that party was and how I got there and how I got home

its almost as if she purposely left out all detail details that if given could be used discredit her claim

 

Trump literally saved the US from falling.

 

Not sure if you do not understand what you are reading or just being your usual annoying self but - what part of RENO was out of line - did you not get out of my last post ?

If you do not know what fruit of the poisoned tree is - read my previous posts where it is explained.

And yes - evidence which is obtained illegally is not admissible in court.

And last - don't tell me to get my facts straight when it is you who have no command of the facts.

 

you are intentionally misrepresenting my position. stop it.

 

Whuh huh? How does having a 3rd person in her room make her credible when the third person denies anything happened?

 

Show me the evidence that the 3rd person 'denies' it happened.

 

Are we talking about the same case here? I joined the thread late so I'll take blame if we are just not on the same page here.... regardless, the statement "she was credible because there was a third person in the room" makes no sense whatsoever unless the 3rd person corroborates...

 

Ah...now you have moved from your original comment. Non-corroboration does not amount to or equal 'denial.'