Scrubbed Her Social Media Accounts: What is Christine Braley Ford trying to hide?

Nomad said:
Kavanaugh might have told other people about the incident. Maybe his buddy who witnessed it told other people. Maybe others who were at the party knew about it. We all know what teenagers are like.

Just because nobody has gone public doesn't mean that they'd lie to the FBI if they came knocking.

You turds are just looking for any excuse to let this guy off the hook. Whether he's guilty or not means nothing to you.
Click to expand...

Might have
Maybe
Maybe

MY-MY, such damning evidence. :laugh:
 
christiefan915 said:
Start a thread on it. This is about Ford.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention that to some earlier posters, including yourself, you cunt.

Lesh said:
You hate women almost as much as black folks huh.
Click to expand...
evince said:
The republican party

the Pro rape party
Click to expand...
DonaldvoTrumpovich said:
Why do you continue to suck Trump's
iu
Click to expand...
Nomad said:
Including when Trump does it, but you Repugnants don't mind that.
Click to expand...
christiefan915 said:
Have you forgotten how David Hogg's yearbook was faked to discredit him?
Click to expand...
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Might have
Maybe
Maybe

MY-MY, such damning evidence. :laugh:
Click to expand...

Testimony from an eyewitness and from others to whom the details of the incident were told immediately after it happened, is actually fairly compelling evidence, now that you mention it.

Compelling enough that, if it's out there and you're interested in finding out the truth about a man who wants a seat on the highest court in the land, it's worthy of an FBI investigation.

It's not like it would take a huge amount of time, given the FBI's resources.

A week, maybe two to find and interview people who were at the party.

Why are you fucks always so scared shitless of the truth that you avoid it like the plague?

The truth will set you free.

Don't you want to be free?

Or would you rather remain chained to your hateful ignorance forever?
 
Nomad said:
Testimony from an eyewitness and from others to whom the details of the incident were told immediately after it happened, is actually fairly compelling evidence, now that you mention it.

Compelling enough that, if it's out there and you're interested in finding out the truth about a man who wants a seat on the highest court in the land, it's worthy of an FBI investigation.

It's not like it would take a huge amount of time, given the FBI's resources.

A week, maybe two to find and interview people who were at the party.

Why are you fucks always so scared shitless of the truth that you avoid it like the plague?

The truth will set you free.

Don't you want to be free?

Or would you rather remain chained to your hateful ignorance forever?
Click to expand...

That would be an "earwitness", which is hearsay and not admissible.


And after all your bloviating, no one seems to want to be in Ford's corner; except for the DNC.

Why do you want to be chained to your unsupported biasness?
 
noise said:
Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations towards Kavanaugh are completely off the wall. Before she came forward, out of the shadows, her social media accounts were scrubbed. Nothing adds up about this story and many holes are popping up all throughout her accusations.

The letter started in the hands of Dianne Feinstein who mentioned the anonymous letter from an alleged incident that happened 30+ years ago from an anonymous person who didn’t want to step forward. I gather this bought democrats enough time to get their story straight and to scrub Blasey Ford’s social media accounts. Why scrub them, what are they hiding?

I have a heart for sexually abused women, I really do. But I do not believe that this is a true or honest accusation. This looks like a play out of the democrat’s playbook to keep Kavanaugh, a pro-life Judge out of the Supreme Court. This woman has no recollection of where she was when the “incident” happened or how she got home. She also never told anyone because she “didn’t want to get in trouble.”

Blasey Ford also participated in the Women’s March with pink p***y hats that she helped make. Obviously her social media accounts were scrubbed of her leftist activities and comments so that her political agenda wouldn’t be known and thus, would make a stronger case.

Via American Thinker:

Turns out her present politics has a lot to do with what we are seeing. She’s a fanatic Bay Area far-left activist.
She donated cash to ShareBlue, a generic Democratic front for cash-raising of the Obama-hipster variety. On Twitter, there was some talk (unverified) that she gave $5,000 to Hillary Clinton, and a more reliable report from reporter Ryan Saavedra that she gave money to Bernie Sanders, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
https://ussanews.com/News1/2018/09/...what-is-christine-braley-ford-trying-to-hide/
Click to expand...

If one of my friends had made the national news this way, I sure as hell would have unfriended them the second they did. Social media has too much drama as is let alone being DM's to death by every media outlet hoping to get some scoop.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
That would be an "earwitness", which is hearsay and not admissible.
Click to expand...

This is not a criminal trial, Oliver Wendell Homo. It's a congressional hearing. The standards of evidence are not the same.

You do understand the difference, don't you?

No, of course you don't.

USFREEDOM911 said:
And after all your bloviating, no one seems to want to be in Ford's corner; except for the DNC.
Click to expand...

And after all YOUR bloviating, no one seems to want to be in Kavanaugh's corner; except for the RNC and a bunch of perverts who've probably engaged in the same kind of crap that he's being accused of.

USFREEDOM911 said:
Why do you want to be chained to your unsupported biasness?
Click to expand...

Well, aside from the fact that there's no such word as "biasness", I could ask you the same thing.

Why are you so afraid of trying to find out the truth about Kavanaugh?
 
Officer: How many shots did you hear?

witness: 3

Officer: did you hear any voices?


witness: Yes , I heard a woman screaming NO NO NO before the shots




completely valid ear witness
 
evince said:
Officer: How many shots did you hear?

witness: 3

Officer: did you hear any voices?


witness: Yes , I heard a woman screaming NO NO NO before the shots

completely valid ear witness
Click to expand...

And admissible as evidence in a trial.
 
evince said:
Officer: How many shots did you hear?

witness: 3

Officer: did you hear any voices?

witness: Yes , I heard a woman screaming NO NO NO before the shots

completely valid ear witness
Click to expand...

True. But very different from saying "my friend told me she heard three shots and a woman screaming 'no, no, no' before the shots."
 
Nomad said:
This is not a criminal trial, Oliver Wendell Homo. It's a congressional hearing. The standards of evidence are not the same.

You do understand the difference, don't you?

No, of course you don't.



And after all YOUR bloviating, no one seems to want to be in Kavanaugh's corner; except for the RNC and a bunch of perverts who've probably engaged in the same kind of crap that he's being accused of.



Well, aside from the fact that there's no such word as "biasness", I could ask you the same thing.

Why are you so afraid of trying to find out the truth about Kavanaugh?
Click to expand...

Then show where "hearsay" is admissible, in a Congressional hearing.

I'll wait while you pull your proof and yourself together.

I happen to be in the corner of FACTS and Ford's accusation has no proven facts in it.

Why are you in favor of unproven allegations, that have no evidence??
 
evince said:
Officer: How many shots did you hear?

witness: 3

Officer: did you hear any voices?


witness: Yes , I heard a woman screaming NO NO NO before the shots




completely valid ear witness
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with "hearsay"; but you're to stupid to understand that and just went with your FEELS. :palm:

Hearsay:

1 - unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:

2 - an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:

Hearing the gunshots and the woman saying no-no-no, is DIRECT KNOWLEDGE; you skank. :D
 
Nomad said:
And admissible as evidence in a trial.
Click to expand...

And now we have another dumbass, who doesn't know what "hearsay" is. :palm:

Hearsay:

1 - unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:

2 - an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Which has nothing to do with "hearsay"; but you're to stupid to understand that and just went with your FEELS. :palm:

Hearsay:

1 - unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:

2 - an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:

Hearing the gunshots and the woman saying no-no-no, is DIRECT KNOWLEDGE; you skank. :D
Click to expand...

Dude, you're so fucking stupid it would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.

People who testify before Congress are only there to answer questions posed to them by members of Congress. If a Senator asks a witness a question about what they saw or heard or who they heard it from, they are free to answer truthfully and there is no lawyer for the opposing side standing up and shouting.... "Objection your honor!!!! That is heresay!!!"

You obviously watch too much TV. :palm:
 
Nomad said:
Dude, you're so fucking stupid it would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.

People who testify before Congress are only there to answer questions posed to them by members of Congress. If a Senator asks a witness a question about what they saw or heard or who they heard it from, they are free to answer truthfully and there is no lawyer for the opposing side standing up and shouting.... "Objection your honor!!!! That is heresay!!!"

You obviously watch too much TV. :palm:
Click to expand...

You were one of the two idiots who tried to say hearing gunshots and a woman saying no, was hearsay.

Don't blame me for your stupidity. :D

Hearsay:

1 - unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:

2 - an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
First link is from 1991 and the second link never mentions a Congressional hearing.
Click to expand...

Right. Because Congressional hearings do not involve any set rules like a civil or criminal trial (the same as in 1991). A lot of the testimony fits the hearsay rule because they asked about what somebody else said. I was just showing there are several exceptions to the hearsay rule even in court proceedings.

I think they will have some more specific rules for Ford's testimony.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
https://scontent.fphx1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/42044296_2143848195942247_8024427367806009344_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=d4f91daf6493f9d31d34b135863594b0&oe=5C3205D7[IMG][/QUOTE]

Do you think that if Grassley and McConnell push the vote Monday, without an investigation, they will have Collins, Flake and Murkowski?
Even if they do have them, what will that do to the female vote in November?

It's a lose / lose for the GOP.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top