Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The only discrepancy I've seen is the number of people in the room which could have easily been a mistake by her therapist. As for her making a mistake on the assailant, that's what an investigation would be for. I don't think she would have come forward unless she personally was sure it was him.
In the Ellison case the initial allegation was actually made by her son which she eventually went along with. She's told the press multiple stories about a video that would prove her story and that she wouldn't give it to them anyway...it's all very strange.
|
"The only discrepancy I've seen is the number of people in the room which could have easily been a mistake by her therapist"
True, or it could be a mistake by her.
Spence, Kavanaugh's best ability to prove innocence, would be to show he was somewhere else at the time. How can he begin to do that, when the accuser can't specify the when and the where? There's literally no possible way to defend himself against this.
It's a morally disgusting tactic, but politically very shrewd. No one knows how to bring a gun to a knife fight, like a liberal.
Oh, OK, you don't believe Ellison's accuser because her story is strange. But nothing strange about sending a letter, telling the senate to hold onto it while the FBI is doing a background check, not mentioning it during 38 hours of questioning. Nah, that's normal, at least by current liberal standards.
If I was Trump, if there's another vacancy (please Ginsberg), I'd go out of my way to fill it with the person that the liberals would hate the most, someone who would make them beg Trump to re-nominate Kavanaugh.. "Ability to infuriate liberals", would be near the top of my list of attributes I'd look for.
Your side won big by fighting dirty against honorable men like McCain and Romney. They still haven't learned that Trump likes fighting dirty, and is better at it, than they are. They're lucky he's limited by separation of powers.
Threaded Mode