Woman Accuses Joe Biden Of Sexual Assault

[rogue06]

And Ford didn't have any evidence against Kavanaugh either - but if I remember you believed her - didn't you?

Not to mention she didn't have the slightest clue when it supposedly happened. Not the day of the week, month, season or even year. Nor did she know where it happened. Or how she got back to school. And of course none of the half dozen people who she said were there (it was a very small party) remember such a party or her rushing past them and leaving (and one was her close friend). And then there was her changing story about Kavanaugh following her up the stairs and that he was already up there and jumped her when she reached the top. And the number involved kept changing as well.

As I said, a lot less credible that what we've heard from Reade -- but as noted that's an awfully low bar.

[seer]

Not to mention she didn't have the slightest clue when it supposedly happened. Not the day of the week, month, season or even year. Nor did she know where it happened. Or how she got back to school. And of course none of the half dozen people who she said were there (it was a very small party) remember such a party or her rushing past them and leaving (and one was her close friend). And then there was her changing story about Kavanaugh following her up the stairs and that he was already up there and jumped her when she reached the top. And the number involved kept changing as well.

As I said, a lot less credible that what we've heard from Reade -- but as noted that's an awfully low bar.

And if I remember correctly Jimmy believed Ford. Though I can't find that now.

[JimL]

And Ford didn't have any evidence against Kavanaugh either - but if I remember you believed her - didn't you?

Yes, it was my opinion that Ford was a credible witness, and I believed her, still do, and Kavanaugh, at the hearing, whether guilty or not, proved himself not to be fit to sit on the SCOTUS.

[rogue06]

And if I remember correctly Jimmy believed Ford. Though I can't find that now.

Why yes he did.

A quick sampling (I'm sure there's more):

Dr. Ford was telling the truth, and we know that, being an avid Trump supporter, you are easily led to believe otherwise. But besides that, Dr Ford was not the sole purpose of the hearing, the purpose of the hearing was to test Kavanaughs overall fitness to be confirmed to a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land. He flunked, and you are blind.

Being a drunk and a perv, sexually molesting girls and lying to Congress about it disqualifies his nomination for the Supreme Court.

Nobody that watched Fords testimony truly believes that she lied, even republican congressmen found her to be credible, though people like yourself say you believe her to be a liar because it suits your agenda.

There is a big difference, dopey. They both have a history, and there is nothing in Dr. Ford's history to suggest she is lying, there is plenty in Kavanaughs history to suggest that he is. Neither one of them is on trial criminally, something you Kavanaugh supporters don't seem to understand, it is a which of the two is more likely to be telling the truth hearing, and that turns out to be Dr. Ford.

And we fully realize why you would want to diminish Dr. Fords and others completely credible testimony, Kavanaughs lies and his inability to conduct himself civilly, commensurate with the temperment of a SC Justice, in a congressional hearing, but it shows the absolute corruption of your minds.

[JimL]

Why yes he did.

A quick sampling (I'm sure there's more):

Thanks for confirming the consistency of my view.

[seer]

Yes, it was my opinion that Ford was a credible witness, and I believed her, still do, and Kavanaugh, at the hearing, whether guilty or not, proved himself not to be fit to sit on the SCOTUS.

So why do you believe Ford and not Biden's accuser? In both cases it comes down to he said/she said.

[seer]

Thanks for confirming the consistency of my view.

You are not consistent unless you apply the same standard to Biden.

[JimL]

So why do you believe Ford and not Biden's accuser? In both cases it comes down to he said/she said.

Why we believe is irrelevant, since belief alone is irrelevant. I found her testimony to be credible, and I found Kavanaughs to be uncredible and his temperment unfit to be a SCJ.

[JimL]

You are not consistent unless you apply the same standard to Biden.

I do, and so does Biden, who in denying the allegations said through his spokesperson that: Women have a right to tell their story and reporters should vigorously vet the claims made. We hope they do, because the allegations are false.
I'm curious though as to why she waited until it looked as though Biden was going to win the nomination before making the accusation to anyone. But I'm willing to listen. She should get herself an attorney. So far no one seems to want to take up her case. Maybe Giuliani will take it.

[rogue06]

Thanks for confirming the consistency of my view.

Consistent would be giving the same benefit of the doubt to Biden's accuser who at least doesn't appear to have more holes in her story than a net does like Kavanaugh's accuser.

[seer]

Why we believe is irrelevant, since belief alone is irrelevant. I found her testimony to be credible, and I found Kavanaughs to be uncredible and his temperment unfit to be a SCJ.

Jim the bottom line is that you are being hypocritical, you know it and so do we. Fess up.

[rogue06]

I do, and so does Biden, who in denying the allegations said through his spokesperson that: Women have a right to tell their story and reporters should vigorously vet the claims made. We hope they do, because the allegations are false.
I'm curious though as to why she waited until it looked as though Biden was going to win the nomination before making the accusation to anyone. But I'm willing to listen. She should get herself an attorney. So far no one seems to want to take up her case. Maybe Giuliani will take it.

Funny how you didn't have that concern when Ford only waited until Kavanaugh was nominated for the SCOTUS.

[JimL]

Consistent would be giving the same benefit of the doubt to Biden's accuser who at least doesn't appear to have more holes in her story than a net does like Kavanaugh's accuser.

And you know there are no holes in her story, how? There were no witnesses. At least Ford had witnesses concerning the place and time, the house party, where both she and Kavanaugh were present as well as witness to her revealing the incident to her therapist years before publicly announcing it. We won't even discuss the witnesses that the FBI refused to investigate such as the friend of Kavanaugh who was in the room with them when the alleged event occured. If Ford was lying, she certainly wouldn't have identified a witness and put that witness in the room with them. But let her get an attorney, let her sue, I'm willing to listen, but from what I've heard so far, she has a story with no evidence whatsoever, so why bring it up now, at this particular time?

[JimL]

Funny how you didn't have that concern when Ford only waited until Kavanaugh was nominated for the SCOTUS.

That's because her story was credible with corroborating evidence, though not proven. But I do agree with that, women do have a right to tell their story, and reporters should vigorously vet them. Apparently she can't even find a right wing corrupt attorney like a Giuliani to represent her.

[Mountain Man]

Funny how you didn't have that concern when Ford only waited until Kavanaugh was nominated for the SCOTUS.

Or the women who suddenly crawled out of the woodwork during the 2016 campaign to level sketchy accusations against Trump only for them to disappear just as suddenly after Trump won the election. It seems that Jimmy is only willing to maintain a neutral position when it's a Democrat being accused.