So none of her named witnesses can recall being there, and one says she doesn't even know Kavanaugh. Those 4 named witnesses can't confirm if the party did or did not happen. Then it's a wash. If you don't think they add any support to his denial, they don't add any support to her...
Then since it is the Senate, and not a court, if Kavanaugh has no expectations of any due process, then neither does she. She's not entitled to any investigations if she's not willing to go to the police or the DA in Maryland, since there's no statute of limitations.
Invalid Link Removed
"Patrick Smyth, a third party-goer identified by Ms. Ford, also denies he attended any such party." That's a pretty straightforward dispute of her claim that her witness, Patrick Smyth, was in attendance.
Many feel that the credibility of the accusers is just as important since in a court, it's the accuser's responsibility to provide evidence to support their allegation. When the witnesses Ford named dispute and can't corroborate her claims, and she changes her story numerous times, questioning...
People protesting aren't facts that he did anything he's accused of. Still waiting on evidence of witness tampering.
Go ahead and tell us why Harvard "scrubbed his name from the faculty directory".
Invalid Link Removed
It's because he said he wasn't returning. Not for whatever reason...
Invalid Link Removed
And it looks like the porn lawyer's client Swetnik is changing her story too. Her interview is different than her sworn statement she submitted. Nobody saw that coming.
Invalid Link Removed
Ol Sherlock Woodward said he looked for Trump Russia collusion and he didn't find anything either. Since he "uncovered Watergate," he's the authoritative investigator to look to for information.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.