I posted an article in – well I don’t know what thread. Someone who says he matches the “PJ” the alleged victim says was at the party. His statement to the committee says he doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
i said under oath.
“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”
“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.”
Now I guess she just has to identify the fourth “boy” who may have been in the room, or may have only been at the party and see what he has to say.
"To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.”
He has no intention of appearing, and he shouldn’t have to. Should be the accused and the accuser testifying. They have written statements from the others.
that’s no under oath. and if there was “improper conduct” (at any other time that other people, including this guy, witnessed) then this guy’s testimony (under oath) would then be in question. “never”. that’s a pretty broad statement (but it’s still not testimony under oath).
it’s the same reason Trump won’t go under oath. anyone can say anything until they put that hand on the bible.
So your saying the alleged victim should show up monday and restate her claims under oath as well? With no conditions?
yeah, they should all be under oath. including other classmates as rebuttal witnesses to what they swear to. because what this other guy is saying is basically “please, don’t call on me”.
This isn’t a trail (as people keep saying over and over and over and over again in multiple threads)
Only two should be called before the committee the accuser and the candidate.
All others have submitted supporting documents.
wha?
do you want the truth or do you want to hurry?
There’s no way to get to the truth of an event that took place over 36 years ago with no physical evidence.
There is no way to get the truth with putting the four people under oath before a committee.
The way the truth would have been found out, was 35 years ago had she told her parents.
The hearing is to let the senators determine is the candidate is fit for the office of supreme court judge.
That can be accomplished by the two appearing before the committee with NO strings attached.
She had 6 years (2012 to 2018) to come forward. She could have come forward when she went to a newspaper, she could have come forward when the hearings started. She didn’t. Appear and testify and get on with it.
well, that’s not true at all. nominee could say he didn’t do it. victim and the other guy could say he did. that’s how juries get to the truth each day.
now, he’d have to go under oath (thus making that broad statement he made) and others could then chime in and testify if he’s lying or not.
but there is a truth. he either did it or he didn’t. if the other guy was corroborating his story, under oath, and no other people came forward and said stuff like “hang on, the nominee’s friend told me the next day that he almost raped the alleged victim” then then story would probably die.
as it is, it’s he said/she said without everyone under oath. that second guy is probably praying that he doesn’t have to testify (since if he just slips up on one thing his testimony could be seen as tainted to the people or congress).
Had she come forward when he was nominated, we wouldn’t be having this discussion most likely. She wasnted to derail his nomination by going to a newspaper and wanted them to do an anonymous story on the allegatoin. They refused. At that point she should have realized she would have to come out of the shadows and have the spotlight on her.
Then she tried to get the same thing accomplished with Feinstien and that didn’t work.
Now she is putting demands on her testemony.
like Trump.
The witness that the victim alleges was in the room should also have to testify under oath. His testimony under oath would help solve the “he said, he said” dilemma
This isn’t about Trump. Stay on the topic of why she would want conditions attached to her testimony.
1 Like
It appears the latter
why would he?
Again, we are not talking about Trump.
