Comments by "" (@charlesvan13) on "Analyst stuns with response to Christine Ford question" video.

  1. The Democrats really overreached with this. Just think about it. The one thing Christine Ford was sure about was that it was Kavanaugh, she was uncertain about the year, location, who else was there. And none of the "witnesses" would corroborate. There is even her ex-boyfriend who testified that many of the things she said were wrong: she didn't fear flying, wasn't nervous in closed spaces, and had couched someone on taking a polygraph. Not only is she not credible, most likely she is deliberately lying.
    8
  2. Joe Smithes That's not true. Even in a civil court the plaintiff has to make their case, and it has to be credible, first. Then the defendant makes his case. Until the plaintiff makes a credible case there is no case against you. In this particular case the Dems are not only advocating guilty until proven innocent. Their case is so vague and without details or witnesses, that it's impossible to defend against.
    4
  3. Craig Jones You're not responding to Trump you dipshit.
    4
  4. That "black cloud" was created by the Dems. None of the accusations were corroborated.
    4
  5. The Dems asked for an FBI investigation, not Ford, and they got it. This never would have went to trial. It doesn't even reach the level of probable cause to arrest someone. No date, year, or location, just sometime 37 years ago in Colombia Maryland with no corroborating witnesses. The Democrats have even demanded that the FBI report be kept secret. Most likely there's information incriminating Ford and the Democrats of coordinating this.
    3
  6. With the testimony of her ex-boyfriend it really looks most likely that Ford was deliberately lying. The Democrats are showing extreme desperation. It's pretty silly. Whenever a Republican nominates a justice they're always saying abortion is going to be banned and then nothing changes decades later. That's not how the court operates. Someone has to bring a case before the court. They don't just overturn established president without being forced to.
    3
  7. Michele Kett No he's not. The Ford and Avanatti accusers would be laughed out of court by a judge. Ford has not a single corroborating witness, and the Avanatti accusers wont even say it was Kavanaugh.
    2
  8. They're demanding that he prove his innocence without even making a credible case. You have to know details of the accusation to make a defense. That's insane to make such an accusation, without specifying even the year. At this point I think the whole thing was a deliberate lie and set up. She wont even release her therapist's notes, even though she cited them as evidence.
    2
  9. Nobody tied the FBI's hands. The other accusers had not seen anything. In other words, they weren't useful witnesses. There are actual standards in a police investigation. With the Avanatii accusers, none of the people mentioned saw anything. The Dems and CNN were digging up gossip, innuendo and rumor, but the FBI doesn't traffic in that. You still lost the vote. So all you all you accomplished was pissing off voters with your unprincipled extremism. You guys did the GOP a favor by killing the Dems electoral chances.
    2
  10. People were coming forward with rumors. But nobody came forward to corroborate the allegations. The Democrats got the FBI report. They would have named a witness if they had one.
    2
  11. Julian The FBI did seven investigations total. If you want a criminal investigation you have to go to the Maryland police. But this case doesn't even reach probable cause.
    1
  12. Give me a break. The democrats have spent that last couple years complaining "How dare Trump denigrate the fine men and women of the FBI." Now you don't get what you want, and the FBI is some politically biased organization. Why would the FBI interview Ford? She said "I have no further testimony." in the Senate.
    1