Ric Flair Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, knapplc said: I posted one piece of corroborating evidence already, and I'll post more and more and more if you keep asking, but really, you should stop. Because this is just embarrassing for a guy who claims to have his JD. Give us the definition of corroborating evidence, counselor. Let's see if you actually know what it is. The fact that she seems to have known him in 1982 is what you’re hanging your hat on? Seriously? 1 minute ago, StPaulHusker said: Just f#&%ing stop your back pedaling. Nothing you said prior to yesterday indicates you believe what you are trying to say now. Just stop. It's better for everyone if you just say what you say and don't try to back away from it later No back pedaling involved. I’ve been consistent on this. 1 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Just now, Ric Flair said: The fact that she seems to have known him in 1982 is what you’re hanging your hat on? Seriously? It refutes your claim that Blasey Ford "lacked any whatsoever." She didn't, there's plenty, and only a person who doesn't understand the legal definition of corroborating evidence would make this mistake. 1 Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Just now, Ric Flair said: ” 3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: No back pedaling involved. I’ve been consistent on this. Your post history is completely contrary to this. You know this, right? We can all see what you have written here 1 Link to comment
Ric Flair Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Just now, StPaulHusker said: Your post history is completely contrary to this. You know this, right? We can all see what you have written here Yawn. Then highlight some posts and let’s discuss. Otherwise quit whining. You’re embarrassing yourself. 1 1 Link to comment
Ric Flair Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, knapplc said: It refutes your claim that Blasey Ford "lacked any whatsoever." She didn't, there's plenty, and only a person who doesn't understand the legal definition of corroborating evidence would make this mistake. Plenty? You’ve pointed to the fact they seem to have known each other back then. That’s “plenty” of corroborating evidence that he sexually assaulted her? And I’m the one who doesn’t understand what corroborating evidence is? 2 Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Ric Flair said: Plenty? You’ve pointed to the fact they seem to have known each other back then. That’s “plenty” of corroborating evidence that he sexually assaulted her? And I’m the one who doesn’t understand what corroborating evidence is? Is that or is that not corroborating evidence? Answer the question, counselor. Link to comment
QMany Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Acting like Collins, Flake, or any of these Trumpkins in here actually "gathered as much information as possible before coming to a conclusion" is disingenuous at best. That was a sham hearing (cross-examination) and investigation from the start. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Really enjoying this moment of silence wherein, in a sudden moment of doubt, our friendly neighborhood naturally strong counselor has run to his Black's Law dictionary to look up the actual meaning of "corroborating evidence." 2 Link to comment
QMany Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Corroborating evidence might be a calendar, produced by the accused, demonstrating he attended a party drinking with the exact people Ford alleged. Unfortunately, the partisan prosecutor barely scratched that surface. 2 Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 5 minutes ago, QMany said: Corroborating evidence might be a calendar, produced by the accused, demonstrating he attended a party drinking with the exact people Ford alleged. Unfortunately, the partisan prosecutor barely scratched that surface. OMG SPOILERS!!!!! It's more fun to dole it out piecemeal. Let him keep embarrassing himself. 1 Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 It's just explained away no matter what. Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said: It's just explained away no matter what. Admitting he may be wrong isn't his strong suit eh? 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said: Admitting he may be wrong isn't his strong suit eh? If the intent is to mislead, there's no need to admit being wrong. 1 Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said: Admitting he may be wrong isn't his strong suit eh? Welcome to politics 1 Link to comment
Ric Flair Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 1 hour ago, QMany said: Corroborating evidence might be a calendar, produced by the accused, demonstrating he attended a party drinking with the exact people Ford alleged. Unfortunately, the partisan prosecutor barely scratched that surface. Some of the same people were listed. Others weren’t. It’s unclear if Ford was at that party. It’s unsurprising that Kavanaugh hung out with his friends...and that he drank with them. Is that corroboration that Ford was probably there and he probably sexually assaulted her? Of course not. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts