Hillary thinks Kavanaugh accuser deserves benefit of doubt
- Thread starter ThunderCat98
- Start date
Why wouldn’t you give her the benefit of the doubt? I don’t like the fact that this all comes out 30 years later only when the political machines get involved. But what is the GOP and Trump going to do if they go through with the nomination only to find out later there is evidence supporting her claim?
Hey idiot, what part of the 4 times I’ve said on here I wasn’t supportive of how this played out. But you’re too stupid to answer the question logically, what are you going to do if Trumps Golden boy is found guilty of this after he’s been announced as the Justice?
I'm going to give both parties the benefit of the doubt here, until we get everything laid out on the table. For now, maybe she's lying, maybe she's telling the truth, or perhaps he's lying, maybe he's not.
With all that said, Hillary isn't credible when it comes to speaking on this topic, so she should just remain on the sidelines, and STFU. I think most on this board would agree with that.
Here's how I think it's going to play out, and it's just my personal theory:
The Ford lady likely did get drunk and have a couple of drunk punks attempt to screw her, or at the very least, attempt to play with her boobs and all. I'm going to predict that this was all a case of mistaken identity. I believe it did occur, but Kavanaugh wasn't the perpetrator.
This lady is playing in the big leagues now, and is about to face some big time lawyers and investigators. I think she'll fold, and I also believe that's why she's likely unwilling to testify. I'm even going to go out on a limb, and suggest the person/persons that were responsible will step up and admit they were the ones.
Tin foil hat? You bet, but I'm going to nail this one.
With all that said, Hillary isn't credible when it comes to speaking on this topic, so she should just remain on the sidelines, and STFU. I think most on this board would agree with that.
Here's how I think it's going to play out, and it's just my personal theory:
The Ford lady likely did get drunk and have a couple of drunk punks attempt to screw her, or at the very least, attempt to play with her boobs and all. I'm going to predict that this was all a case of mistaken identity. I believe it did occur, but Kavanaugh wasn't the perpetrator.
This lady is playing in the big leagues now, and is about to face some big time lawyers and investigators. I think she'll fold, and I also believe that's why she's likely unwilling to testify. I'm even going to go out on a limb, and suggest the person/persons that were responsible will step up and admit they were the ones.
Tin foil hat? You bet, but I'm going to nail this one.
Because she has a history of ignoring/smearing victims of sexual assault
I think the question is why would Hillary give her the benefit. I mean she is on record of "standing by her man" when various women accused her husband of far worse. So it is funny to hear her chime in on the subject. But none of us would expect you to get it. After all you are such a Trump Hater you can only see bad even when there is good all around in plain sight
No moron the question is why wouldn’t anyone give her the benefit of the doubt until the investigation is complete? That’s the whole reason for the interview to begin with. Leave Clinton out of this and answer that question
We should give her the benefit of the doubt, but Kavanaugh shouldn’t be assumed guilty simply because someone says so. The issue is twofold. One...Hillary didn’t give any of Bill’s accusers the benefit of the doubt. Quite the opposite actually. She actively tried to ruin their lives for daring to bring public what her husband did to them. So Hillary needs to just hush. Two...Ford’s story has holes that she could fill by speaking to the Senate, but she won’t do it. Was it during the summer or during school? Both have been stated. Was it the talk of the school or did she not tell a soul? Both have been stated. All three people that she said was there in addition to Kavanaugh have said publicly that they were not there and had no memory whatsoever of the party in question.
What’s more likely is that she is combining several “memories” and creating something in her mind that didn’t actually happen. She isn’t even really accusing him of sexual assault...just that she “thought” he was going to try to sexually assault her because someone closed a door. Former girlfriends have spoken out on how much of a gentleman Kavanaugh is and was, and 65 of his classmates signed a letter stating the same.
All that, and the fact that she is a partisan Democrat who contributes to the DNC makes all this smell fishy. But yes, she needs to be heard. That probably won’t happen, and Kavanaugh will be a Supreme Court Justice in a few short weeks.
Thanks BC for logically answering a simple question in which most on here are obviously incapable of doing. I don’t disagree with you on a lot of this. But do you think the nomination should be held up until the investigation of complete or move forward with it and hope she backs off? Seems like a political nightmare to me if she’s telling the truth, is it worth the risk?
I think the Republicans in the Senate have been more than willing to allow her to testify on this account. Her lawyers are refusing. So, in my mind, what else can they do? This is not an FBI issue. Like I said before, she isn’t even really accusing him of sexual assault.
I knew you wouldn't understand, above your head once again.The OP refers to Hillary so I am responding to that statement and can't leave her out. Of all people, she never gave any of her husbands accusers the benefit of the doubt, she attacked them all. On top of that Kavanaugh shouldn’t be assumed guilty simply because someone says so.
And you change the subject ...priceless. By the way, if you could comprehend anything, you would understand that I never said she shouldn't be given the benefit of doubt. I said in response to the OP that it is funny HC said that.
she thought he was going to rape her somewhere, sometime not sure when but she knows it was him.
Comprehension? Coming from you who couldn’t comprehend Herdlalicious simple post on the main board? GTFO
https://marshall.forums.rivals.com/threads/sleeping-with-the-enemy.40564/
Posting here for you Ohio for your non comprehension ass.
Posting here for you Ohio for your non comprehension ass.
Marine it's not even 10:00 am EST and you have already made an ass of yourself several times on here. I think you should call it a day and get on with your weekend.
The senat judiciary committee is trying to investigate. The Dems are dragging their feet. If there’s a crime then go to the local authorities where the crime took place and file a report. It amazes me how Ford isn’t ready to testify but by god she was ready to take a polygraph. She was ready to take her story to her congresswoman. She through her attorneys said at the beginning of the week that she couldn’t wait to tell her story for the committee but now that won’t happen unless her demands are met
Okay we can go back and forth on this but you obviously aren't smart enough to understand. By the way, I concede I read the post you referenced quickly and did not respond correctly on the other board. Have your fun with that one. Sad you are too arrogant to admit you are wrong on this one.
From the article.Hillary Clinton told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow that she believes Dr. Christine Blasey Ford deserves the benefit of the doubt in her accusation that Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, sexually assaulted her when the two were teenagers.
I said I didn’t give a fvck about Hillary I only asked why “her” meaning the accuser not Hillary. Why would anyone refer to giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt she’s just being interviewed over the situation. Damn you’re fvcking dense. The headline states “Hillary thinks accused deserves benefit of the doubt”
Go back to 3rd grade and start over idiot
My question was simple and the only person smart enough to answer was BC. Why would you not give her the benefit of the doubt?
OMG you are really pitiful. The OP was about Clinton. I don't care about your dislike of her. Don't attack me for responding to the OP. You for some reason can't understand that for me to respond to the OP I must refer to her.
I know what the OP was over moron but none of you but BC and Michigan are smart enough to understand the simple question I asked.
On a side note, you make Extra's and Country's posts seem passibly intelligent, so congrats, I guess?
I didn’t attack you you quoted me and stated this about Clinton when at no point I was referring to Clinton in my question. How stupid are you and LeotardCat today?
Also, while we're at it, why should she get "the benefit of the doubt"?
For example, say one of the moms on your kid's baseball team claims you cornered her in the snack booth and felt her up, all while she kept telling you to stop. Does she get the "benefit of the doubt" for simply making an allegation, even though you know it to be wholly untrue ?
No one should get the "benefit" of anything in a he said, she said scenario. You take the allegations, question the parties involved, determine if there is corroborating evidence one way or the other, and go from there.
Giving her the "benefit of the doubt" is saying, "well, unless he can prove otherwise, it must be true," which is a legal and logical absurdity.
For example, say one of the moms on your kid's baseball team claims you cornered her in the snack booth and felt her up, all while she kept telling you to stop. Does she get the "benefit of the doubt" for simply making an allegation, even though you know it to be wholly untrue ?
No one should get the "benefit" of anything in a he said, she said scenario. You take the allegations, question the parties involved, determine if there is corroborating evidence one way or the other, and go from there.
Giving her the "benefit of the doubt" is saying, "well, unless he can prove otherwise, it must be true," which is a legal and logical absurdity.
The reason I asked and why wouldn’t you want to is the political nightmare involving the nomination if for some reason her story is validated. I for one don’t believe everything she says is true and the timing is too much of a coincidence for my liking. But if she’s right and this guy is nominated the backlash is going to be catastrophic I think.
Normally I would let this go. With you I will make an exception. To recap: the OP was about the blatant hypocrisy of HC. Here is what you said initially No moron the question is why wouldn’t anyone give her the benefit of the doubt until the investigation is complete? That’s the whole reason for the interview to begin with. Leave Clinton out of this and answer that question It is absolutely hilarious for Hillary to say that. That is not the subject in the OP. You keep changing the subject. Our response is about HC and her obvious conflict when she never gave any of her husbands accusers the benefit of doubt.I am not attacking her answer. I am making fun of her now saying it is a big deal when years earlier she didn't afford that position to others. Start a new thread and talk about how the accuser needs to be given the benefit of doubt if you wish. Good Lord quite trying to pretend that you didn't put your foot in your mouth on this thread.
Idiot I know what the OP was and why he even posted the gif. At no point was I referring to Hillary, I even said I’m not referring to Hillary on more than one occasion to not only you but to 429 as well. Fact is you went back and read all this and since I’ve called you out once already on your lack of basic reading skills you’re going to argue until your blue in the face.
First, you failed to address my hypothetical. Second, in what way do the concerns you've outlined above warrant "giving her the benefit of the doubt"? The correct approach is the one i laid out in my post - as opposed to believing her unless, or until, it's proven untrue. How does a follow-up investigation fail to address your concerns? You're not making any sense. The notion of simply giving her story credibility over Kavanaugh's would result in a tremendous injustice to the accused, which is the complete opposite of what you'd want for anyone in this situation.
The GOP is actually handling this situation seriously and it's clear the dems aren't. In fact, their actions are abhorrent. They sat on the letter either because they didn't think it held merit or they planned on using it for political gain. It's an unprovable accusation, over 30 years old, which she asked her Senator to keep confidential, which she didn't. She didn't file charges & says she didn't tell a single person. Key details in her accusation are nonexistent or aren't consistent. One of her classmates has backed away from comments she made backing up the story. Now they want to deprive the accused of the ability to confront the accuser while making him testify first, denying him the ability to respond to the accusations.
If ths is the level of proof acceptable to democrats to ruin a man's life, that should terrify every sane man on here and in this country.
If ths is the level of proof acceptable to democrats to ruin a man's life, that should terrify every sane man on here and in this country.
Problem with your hypothetical question is I’m not being nominated for the Justice of the Surpreme Court so it’s not the same scenario to begin with. Also in your scenario I’m not running for office or the board in this so called league therefore your hypothetical scenario has no merit here. If that’s the type of courtroom litigation you learned at your Tier 3 school you were robbed of a legit law degree if that’s the best you can do. However, since I’m a good sport I’ll play along here. If this were the case I certainly would want my name cleared before I went forward with the nomination. If I had any doubt that it wouldn’t be I would deny the nomination to save myself the public humiliation that would ensue. Me personally I think it’s a huge gamble for the GOP at least until it’s dropped or she testifies.
Kavanaugh, more than anybody involved in this, understands the ramifications of perjuring himself. The GOP has gone beyond what I would say is reasonable given how thin her case is.
