Well at least @harriet understood how misleading the article is. You fell for it though.
1 Like
Not much noise about this?
oh right, ronaldo is not a republican, and he is don’t support trump.
Again, why 9 years ago in this case to report it? Hmmm…
hkers called these 勞資糾紛 , she accepted money from him and sign something, so looks like she spent it all and now want some more due to the movements
There’s some perspective on being fit for office. Then Democrats said HS was ancient history and doesn’t matter.
It was reported to Police 9 years ago, but later settled under the condition that the lady would never bring it up again.
1 Like
He ahould pay her like lottery in 30 yrs monthly payment, so she don’t run out of cash this fast
1 Like
Ok, so settled obviously with a decent sized money payment. Both parties essentially got what it wanted. Ronaldo obviously wanted it to be hush-hush and it sounds like she went along with it. But now that it is all in the open hasn’t Ronaldo actually been harmed, reputation wise and thus financially?
My position is that for serious crimes, any private settlement should be voided, and the perpetrators be prosecuted. The victims can be compensated through the court system instead of private arrangements which let the criminals go free.
2 Likes
most likely none of you will really read anything besides headline.
1 Like
Well, the argument is that this is not a criminal investigation vs. more of a job interview. Pick a side… any side
I posted a link to her analysis as well. The criticism was she was hired by republicans, so it must be biased. When I asked for specific objections to anything in the letter, there was silence. In other words, it was completely dismissed without even reading it.
Scary…they find security footage that is 9 years ago…
maybe ronaldo pay her for providing good service. who knows.
Let the prosecutor do their job i guess. but she did took the money for sure.
I read through Mitchell’s assessment provided to the republican senators which is prefaced with the understanding that it is being made from her personal perspective-- from a legal standpoint-- as opposed to a political assessment such as the Senate’s confirmation process, which falls outside her normal scope of work. In summary she states there was not enough evidence presented at the “he said, she said” hearing to prosecute in a criminal court. I think all would agree there was not enough evidence, and that is the reason why an investigation was warranted.
The anguish is apparent in both Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh in trying to discover whether the alleged sexual assault took place. If found to be true, it would be life-damaging to either party. Because none of the alleged witnesses can recall it (NOT the same as they all swore “it didn’t happen”), more evidence will be difficult to find. But as far as credibility goes, her testimony was stronger than his. All Kavanaugh has done is to deny, deny, deny, even on claims which were easily disproved. His classmates are coming out one by one, with accounts of BK which do just this. On the other hand, Blasey Ford had to piece together details from her memory that are in fact corroborated by BK’s calendar, Mark Judge’s memoir and a map of the neighborhood. This are things which could simply not have been dreamed up by a stranger out of thin air as insinuated by BK. It just leaves lots of uneasy questions which I hope the Senators don’t ignore when they vote.
2 Likes
Which party will benefit from this? Midterm is coming in 1 month, Kavannaugh news now dominates anything else.
If Senate delays this to late October, Kavannaugh news could very well decide the midterm outcome.
Is NPR poll of good quality?
1 Like
I already addressed the calendar entry. She didn’t even name Timmy as there, and it was at his house.
Mitchell said not only would it not be enough to press charges it wouldn’t be enough to justify a warrant. That’s a pretty low bar.
Her multiple statements conflict with each other. She remembers perfectly that 30+ years ago it was Kavanaugh. Yet, she can’t remember if she sent therapist notes to the Washington Post, read them, or verbally summarized them. The therapist notes are her alleged best proof, and she won’t release them. All we have is her word for what’s in them. It was 4 people in the room then 2 people. She has no idea how she got to the party or got home. She’s terrified of flying, but she seems to fly pretty regularly. She’s describe it as early 80’s, mid 80’s, and some how settled on 1982. She is in no way a credible witness.
Oh, and she keeps adding to her legal/advisor team and seemed to have no idea how she was going to pay for them.
2 Likes
She’s a good actor. Obviously people don’t read what we post. They only listen to msm. Very sheepy
1 Like