No, President Trump. Democrats are not the party of crime!

johnwk2 · 2018-10-05T20:36:15.483Z

party-free:

johnwk2:

So why does the Democrat Party Leadership embrace an admitted abuser of women? One who actually bragged about groping a woman?

You’ll have to ask some Democrats. I couldn’t answer that for you.

johnwk2:

Now, stop dodging and answer the question.

Enough of your games, John. It’s quite obvious why you’ve now dodged my question THREE TIMES now.

For the fourth time:

party-free:

Why is Ellison’s accuser to believed, but not Kavanaugh’s, when the evidence presented by both is identical-their own word?

The real question is, why does the Democrat Party Leadership embrace Booker, an admitted abuser of women? One who actually bragged about groping a woman?

JWK

The primary function of a Supreme Court Justice is to be obedient to the text of our Constitution, and give effect to its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

Grimalken · 2018-10-05T20:44:46.990Z

koushi_shinigami:

Articulate and well stated.

Democrats being the party of lawlessness, would have been fitting also

party-free · 2018-10-05T20:47:46.671Z

johnwk2:

The real question is, why does the Democrat Party Leadership embrace Booker, an admitted abuser of women? One who actually bragged about groping a woman?

No, that’s not the real question. It’s the irrelevant deflection you keep using because you REFUSE to answer my question:

party-free:

Stop dodging and answer a damned question. Why is Ellison’s accuser to believed, but not Kavanaugh’s, when the evidence presented by both is identical-their own word?

Grimalken · 2018-10-05T20:58:56.270Z

party-free:

is Ellison’s accuser to believed

That’s the difference I see between some on the left, and people like me. No one is supposed to “be believed” just because the person is a woman.

We should not dismiss her out of hand, and allow her to be heard, yes.

But to suggest we are to just believe her, and take her word as fact, suggests the person she has accused is guilty as accused. That turns our entire legal system on its head.

party-free · 2018-10-05T21:02:39.088Z

party-free:

Stop dodging and answer a damned question. Why is Ellison’s accuser to believed, but not Kavanaugh’s, when the evidence presented by both is identical-their own word?

The entire question I asked is important, not just the part you snipped. I asked why John believes Ellison’s accuser and not Kavanaugh’s. He’s constantly touting the allegations against Ellison, but the proof she provided is exactly what Ford provided.

@johnwk2 refuses to answer to that, and it’s blatantly obvious why. He’s dodged the question and deflected away every single time.

johnwk2 · 2018-10-06T12:40:07.008Z

party-free:

No, that’s not the real question. It’s the irrelevant deflection you keep using because you REFUSE to answer my question:

Stop dodging and answer the question. Why does the Democrat Party Leadership embrace Booker, an admitted abuser of women? One who actually bragged about groping a woman?

JWK

Socialism is intentionally designed to benefit politicians who confiscate and then redistribute “free government cheese”, while they enslave those who produce the cheese.

party-free · 2018-10-06T13:35:27.825Z

johnwk2:

Stop dodging and answer the question. Why does the Democrat Party Leadership embrace Booker, an admitted abuser of women? One who actually bragged about groping a woman?

I have no idea. You’re going to have to ask a Democrat leader because I can’t speak for them.

party-free:

Stop dodging and answer a damned question. Why is Ellison’s accuser to believed, but not Kavanaugh’s, when the evidence presented by both is identical-their own word?

johnwk2 · 2018-10-06T13:43:35.510Z

party-free:

Why is Ellison’s accuser to believed, but not Kavanaugh’s, when the evidence presented by both is identical

Identical?!

Well then, the real question is, why does the Democrat Party Leadership embrace Keith Ellison, keeping him as the deputy Chair of the democrat national committee, when the evidence against Ellison is allegedly “identical” to the evidence against Kavanaugh, who the Democrat Party Leadership has used every dirty trick in the book to prevent from holding an office of public trust?

Additionally, why does the Democrat Party Leadership embrace Cory Booker, a self-proclaimed abuser of women? One who actually bragged about groping a woman?

From my perspective, the Democrat Party Leadership is a strong supporter of the “presumption of innocence” when it comes to their man, but not when it comes to someone who may actually support and defend both the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

party-free · 2018-10-06T14:05:05.065Z

johnwk2:

Identical?!

Yes. Ellison’s accuser’s only evidence right now is her own word. Ford’s only evidence is her word. So why are you treating one differently than the other? Are you suggesting we should believe Dr. Ford, since her evidence it the same as Ellison’s accuser?

johnwk2:

Well then, the real question is, why does the Democrat Party Leadership embrace Keith Ellison, keeping him as the deputy Chair of the democrat national committee, when the evidence against Ellison is allegedly “identical” to the evidence against Kavanaugh, who the Democrat Party Leadership has used every dirty trick in the book to prevent from holding an office of public trust?

No idea, you’re going to have to ask them.

johnwk2:

Additionally, why does the Democrat Party Leadership embrace Cory Booker, a self-proclaimed abuser of women? One who actually bragged about groping a woman?

No idea. You’re going to have to ask them.

johnwk2:

From my perspective, the Democrat Party Leadership is a strong supporter of the “presumption of innocence” when it comes to their man, but not when it comes to someone who may actually support and defend both the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

You’re doing the exact same thing to a Democrat that Democrats are doing to a Republican. So how are you better than Democrats?

johnwk2 · 2018-10-06T14:46:46.791Z

party-free:

johnwk2:

Identical?!

party-free:

Yes. Ellison’s accuser’s only evidence right now is her own word. Ford’s only evidence is her word. So why are you treating one differently than the other? Are you suggesting we should believe Dr. Ford, since her evidence it the same as Ellison’s accuser?

Now you are making stuff up. The truth is, Ford’s own witnesses would not corroborate Ford’s story, while Monahan’s witnesses did corroborate her story.

So, it seems quite clear the Democrat Party Leadership is a strong supporter of the “presumption of innocence” when it comes to their man Ellison, but not when it comes to someone who may actually support and defend both the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, the Andrew Gillum socialist plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

rone5847 · 2018-10-06T14:51:30.769Z

They are the party of communism.

party-free · 2018-10-06T15:10:53.322Z

johnwk2:

Now you are making stuff up. The truth is, Ford’s own witnesses would not corroborate Ford’s story, while Monahan’s witnesses did corroborate her story.

False.

There were no witnesses to Monahan’s story other than her having told them what happened…JUST LIKE FORD. The only evidence she has is a doctor note that says they never saw signs of physical abuse, and that she only REPORTED the allegations to them-none were proven. She CLAIMS she has a video, but has refused to release it.

johnwk2:

So, it seems quite clear the Democrat Party Leadership is a strong supporter of the “presumption of innocence” when it comes to their man Ellison, but not when it comes to someone who may actually support and defend both the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

Stop spreading #FakeNews, John. What you have said is false. Of course, I’d love for you to back up your word and prove me wrong, and I’ll gladly admit it when you do.

johnwk2 · 2018-10-06T17:09:52.446Z

party-free:

johnwk2:

Now you are making stuff up. The truth is, Ford’s own witnesses would not corroborate Ford’s story, while Monahan’s witnesses did corroborate her story.

False.

There were no witnesses to Monahan’s story other than her having told them what happened…JUST LIKE FORD. The only evidence she has is a doctor note that says they never saw signs of physical abuse, and that she only REPORTED the allegations to them-none were proven. She CLAIMS she has a video, but has refused to release it.

johnwk2:

So, it seems quite clear the Democrat Party Leadership is a strong supporter of the “presumption of innocence” when it comes to their man Ellison, but not when it comes to someone who may actually support and defend both the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

Stop spreading #FakeNews, John. What you have said is false. Of course, I’d love for you to back up your word and prove me wrong, and I’ll gladly admit it when you do.

Karen Monahan’s Lawyer: There’s ‘Substantial Corroborative Evidence’ Despite The Report

”there were four witnesses identified that corroborated the story that Karen Monahan told them, that they completely believed her and she told it to them shortly after the incident occurred.”

Now regarding Ford, see Rachel Mitchell’s memo is damaging to Christine Blasey Ford’s case against Brett Kavanaugh

Mitchell concluded that, from a legal standpoint, “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them.”

So, it seems quite clear the Democrat Party Leadership is a strong supporter of the “presumption of innocence” when it comes to their man Ellison, but not when it comes to someone who may actually support and defend both the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

The only one here posting unsubstantiated opinions is you!

JWK

The liberty to succeed or fail at one’s own hand is a socialist’s nightmare and not the American Dream

johnwk2 · 2018-10-06T17:37:28.269Z

rone5847:

They are the party of communism.

Have you noticed the paid anti Kavanaugh protestors are GIVING the socialist/communist fist pump in the air? George Soros must be very proud.

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, Andrew Gillum’s socialist plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

party-free · 2018-10-06T18:24:46.143Z

You have not contradicted what I said. You actually corroborated it and don’t even realize it. Read what I said again.

johnwk2 · 2018-10-06T18:48:59.568Z

party-free:

You have not contradicted what I said. You actually corroborated it and don’t even realize it. Read what I said again.

You are really beginning to look foolish. You did ask "Why is Ellison’s accuser to believed, but not Kavanaugh’s, when the evidence presented by both is identical-their own word?"

Monahan’s story was corroborated by witnesses while Blasey Ford’s witnesses would not corroborate her story.

So tell me, what do you think of the paid anti-Kavanaugh protestors GIVING the socialist/communist fist pump in the air?

JWK

The primary function of a Supreme Court Justice is to be obedient to the text of our Constitution, and give effect to its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

party-free · 2018-10-06T18:50:10.880Z

There were no witnesses to Monahan’s accusations. No one saw the alleged abuse. All she has is her own word and a video she refuses to produce.

johnwk2 · 2018-10-06T19:51:01.254Z

party-free:

There were no witnesses to Monahan’s accusations. No one saw the alleged abuse.

But . . .Monahan’s story was corroborated by witnesses while Blasey Ford’s witnesses would not corroborate her story. Your assertion about both situations being “identical” is utter nonsense.

So tell me, what do you think of the paid anti-Kavanaugh protestors GIVING the socialist/communist fist pump in the air? Wouldn’t you agree George Soros must be very proud?

JWK

They are neither “liberals” nor “progressives”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use government force to steal and then enjoy the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create.

party-free · 2018-10-06T20:08:37.888Z

There’s literally no one who can corroborate Monahan’s abuse because no one saw it.

In both cases all we have is their word. Their evidence is identical. You dont like it, but these are the facts.

johnwk2 · 2018-10-06T21:24:14.624Z

party-free:

There’s literally no one who can corroborate Monahan’s abuse because no one saw it.

In both cases all we have is their word. Their evidence is identical. You dont like it, but these are the facts.

The evidence is not identical. Monahan does have a medical record which "… documents her stress and anxiety level as being directly related to her abusive relationship with Rep. Ellison." See: Medical Records Document Keith Ellison’s Physical and Emotional Abuse of Female Accuser

Monahan also has witnesses which corroborate, shortly after she was abused, that she confided in that Ellison abused her.

By contrast, Blasey Ford’s witnesses, alleged to have been in the room when she was allegedly sexually assaulted, would not corroborate her story. Your assertion that the evidence against Ellison is “identical” to that of Ford is utter nonsense.

Aside from that, what do you think of the paid anti-Kavanaugh protestors GIVING the socialist/communist fist pump in the air? Wouldn’t you agree George Soros must be very proud?

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, Andrew Gillum’s socialist plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.