Corroborating witness testimony has sent people to the chair, but it's not good enough to prove kav was at a house party..
Yeah but once she remembers where it took place and whose house it was, he's DONEThere is no corroborating witness for her. There's a corroborating witness for him though, but you'll tell me that doesn't count for reasons. And witness testimony shouldn't result in the death penalty.
There's also the small matter that sexual assault doesn't fall under FBI jurisdiction unless they crossed state lines, happened in DC, on federal property, or were against a federal official.
Yeah but once she remembers where it took place and whose house it was, he's DONE
There is no corroborating witness for her. There's a corroborating witness for him though, but you'll tell me that doesn't count for reasons.
And witness testimony shouldn't result in the death penalty.
There's also the small matter that sexual assault doesn't fall under FBI jurisdiction unless they crossed state lines, happened in DC, on federal property, or were against a federal official.
Triple answers 1 with 2Two things you're not acknowledging, I'm guessing for "reasons".
1. Ford did not have to place Mark Judge in that room to argue against her. She did so knowing he would say it never happened. Why do that if you're making it up?
2. Mark judge is alleged to have watched as Bret tried to rape her. He has obvious motive to lie.
They wouldn't be investigating the crime of sexual assault. They'd be pursuing a background check on a SCOTUS nominee based on new information, just like they did during Anita Hill.
d00 no him still soundn lykkit 2 lmao smdhffffffffffuuukkkkkkme it fukn b hurtn so fukn bad 2 b wakkn up err fukn day muh fukn famly h8 me muh fukn own race fukn h8 me fukkkkkkkkkkkk i m yus betta off ded hopeful 2marro i donot wakkup wishn muh cuckfuck pussyass sum luk ok tyall 4 lissnin summo fukme n fuku 2 mom fuk
She didn't name Kavanaugh in those sessions, and the notes do not align with her story. If the notes are not accurate, it calls into question which parts of the notes are true and which parts are false. They lose all credibility as a result. Secondly it doesn't corroborate anything, as it's just her telling the same supposed story twice on two occasions. So what?
It doesn't even matter if she's lying or not about what she believes happened. There is no proof. No proof a party took place. No proof that the house exists. No proof that Kavanaugh was there. No proof that he's ever even met Ford. There's not even any proof that Kavanaugh was in the state when said incident happened, because you can't provide a date.
d00 no him still soundn lykkit 2 lmao smdhffffffffffuuukkkkkkme it fukn b hurtn so fukn bad 2 b wakkn up err fukn day muh fukn famly h8 me muh fukn own race fukn h8 me fukkkkkkkkkkkk i m yus betta off ded hopeful 2marro i donot wakkup wishn muh cuckfuck pussyass sum luk ok tyall 4 lissnin summo fukme n fuku 2 mom fuk
It's almost like this requires more investigation to prove or disprove.
Run it thru the facial recognition triple.
d00 no him still soundn lykkit 2 wtf lmao smdhffffffffffuuukkkkkkme it fukn b hurtn so fukn bad 2 b wakkn up err fukn day muh fukn famly h8 me muh fukn own race fukn h8 me fukkkkkkkkkkkk i m yus betta off ded hopeful 2marro i donot wakkup wishn muh cuckfuck pussyass sum luk ok tyall 4 lissnin summo fukme n fuku 2 mom fuk
well she's white blond and has sunglasses that's practically a 100% match
it's almost as if you could search for that exact spec in a stock engine if you wanted to discredit someone