This song from "The Incredible Machine" is so beautiful that it brought tears to my eyes listening to it for the first time since many years ago when I was a child.
https://t.co/3caT3sDArG
@trumpfanny You don't define "slut", but presumably you are suggesting that Dr. Ford has had sex from time to time in her life. Even if true, this is not relevant to her credibility. Various jurisdictions now ban sexual history evidence precisely to avoid this kind of misogynistic argument.
@trumpfanny You don't define "slut", but presumably you are suggesting that Dr. Ford has had sex from time to time in her life. Even if true, this is not relevant to her credibility. Various jurisdictions now ban sexual history evidence precisely to avoid this kind of misogynistic argument.
People have suggested that Kavanaugh cannot be found guilty in the absence of corroborating evidence, but that would be a more generous standard than is applied in the actual criminal justice system. A jury can generally convict upon the testimony of a single credible witness.
@suv49 The point being made here is that even if Kavanaugh had been on trial, he might have been convicted because there actually *was* proof — namely, Dr. Ford's testimony. Under Maryland law at the time, this was sufficient evidence to ground a conviction.
https://t.co/9CzdbglExO
@Trumpussolini@CeceCalabrese Dude, what are you even talking about? The term "prosecutrix" is a dated feminine form of "prosecuting witness". It's a synonym for "complainant", and it's very old, somewhat sexist in nature, and no longer used.
@Trumpussolini@CeceCalabrese Dude, what are you even talking about? The term "prosecutrix" is a dated feminine form of "prosecuting witness". It's a synonym for "complainant", and it's very old, somewhat sexist in nature, and no longer used.
@Trumpussolini@CeceCalabrese Nothing was "altered". You can see the original document at https://t.co/w9QDT9vGw7. I've also underlined the quoted passage in the image below.
Did you even bother to check before falsely accusing me of dishonesty?
@JP_Emails In the United States, people are innocent until proven guilty. And one way they can be proven guilty is with the testimony of a credible witness. See:
https://t.co/ZKyb0F8BZk
@dtill96 The difference is that Dr. Ford was testifying to facts which, if believed, were within her personal knowledge. The existence or non-existence of a teapot orbiting in space is not within anyone's personal knowledge.
@IvanhoeVon@Haifisch46 Thank you for outing yourself as somebody willing to lie under oath. This reflects very poorly on your moral character, but it says nothing about Dr. Ford.
@norrdrake Putting aside the fact that I wasn't alive in the 1980s, are you suggesting that you are willing to lie under oath as if doing so were a trifling matter? If so, that reflects very poorly on your moral character, not on mine or Dr. Ford's.
@londonlaine Have you researched the elements of that offense in order to make that statement, or are you just continuing to make bald assertions with no research at all? (My guess is the latter.)
@ChasJared Even assuming the contents of that article is true, nothing in it suggests that Dr. Ford lied about anything. Having a fear of flying is not inconsistent with being willing to fly.
@ChasJared Dr. Ford has not "admitted that she lied". Even if we assume that Donald Trump is a reliable source of factual information (an assumption that some would dispute), his tweet that you've quoted does not purport to say anything about Dr. Ford.