Posted on 09/30/2018 3:25:05 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
On Thursday, Judge Andrew Napolitano handed the mob all the rope they could possibly ask for, courtesy of Fox News, saying, “All of us agree that this witness is exceptionally credible.” No one argued with him.
Listen, I am not here to signal my own virtue. I am not David French, or Matthew Dowd, or Jake Tapper. The reason I have defended those whose politics and character disgust me has nothing to do with virtue and everything to do with self-preservation.
I have never liked Roy Moore; I have still defended him. Charlie Sheen’s mug shot should be pasted next to “degenerate” in the dictionary; I have still defended him. Woody Allen, George Takei, and Bryan Singer are moral and political illiterates; I have still defended them. And in the specific cases of Allen, Moore, and Singer, vigorously and in great detail.
You know what—I was wrong. Let me back up a bit.
It’s actually not about self-preservation, at least not anymore.
Maybe it was at first, maybe it was a hundred years ago, before “The Woke” fascists who have captured our culture and media began slapping scarlet letters on free thinkers; before we became a country where panel after panel on MSNBC and CNN would condemn Atticus Finch for not believing the woman, before Twitter and Facebook would “unperson” Winston Smith over a joke.
Maybe a hundred years ago I believed that if I didn’t join the mob, I would be safe when the mob came for me, because I could say to the mob, “Hey, I’m not a part of this. I said Brian Williams deserved a second chance. I’ve never called on anyone to be fired. I oppose boycotts. I’ve defended you and you and even you.”
How so very naive….
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Judge Andrew Wrongitano is a total jackass.
Excellent article. Does a great job listing all of the problems with Ford’s testimony.
She was as Credible as any other Perjurer.
You are not allowed to criticize homsoexuals. You KNOW this.
She is credible because we believe that she believes it. Know what that means? We don’t believe her.
I have yet to hear anyone say WHY she was “credible”.
Brilliant!
Great article.
Just trying to show the world they’re not biased.
So tired of hearing that this woman and her repressed memory bulls**t is "credible."
“Credible” - a focus group-tested, fascist approved Group-think term that has no actual meaning. I’ve heard recently that Clarence Thomas still labors under “credible” accusations of sexual harassment from his confirmation hearing. That political hack jackass Stephen Colbert recently brought up the “credible” accusations of sexual harassment that were trotted out against Donald Trump right before his election and then mysteriously vanished.
If Christine Blasey Ford’s vague, non-specific and unprovable charges are “credible”, what isn’t? Time-Share sales pitches? Fortune Cookies? Those little “Answer-Me” balls?
She’s as credible as a habitual liar can be.
Fox news is only conservative for about 2hours on weekdays. Other than that they are totally liberal.
The Characters mentioned were virtue signaling. They wanted their opinion of the testimony to be accepted but first had to bow at the altar in order to not argue Dr Ford’s implausible tale.
Credibility means believable. Only a jackass would believe Blasey. Stupidity has no bounds and fools will believe anything. Odds are the whole thing has been contrived from the get-go.
I know it. I use to like him but he must have done something pretty bad that the deep state has on him for him to come out and talk like an idiot. These people really think we don’t see through all this. They are disgusting and they make me sick. After everything they have been doing I will have NO SYMPATHY WHATSOEVER when they are exposed to the world.
In other words it is ok to have full blown limitless goverbment inquisition on Kavanaugh but shameful to question the alleged victim...
Horsesht, they cannot have it both ways
Anybody who believes that half-baked story is thinking with their uterus.
The judge should know better than anyone else that this Ford-Kavanaugh case would have never made it into a courtroom - Ms Mitchell who did the questioning on behalf of the Republicans at the hearing, a prosecutor in real life, said she never could have brought a case on the basis of the evidence presented - but if it had, Kavanaugh’s defense would have been able to introduce all the evidence of past studies which have demonstrated how totally unreliable the memory of those involved in an emotional situation like a supposed rape can be, even in as short a time as one day let alone 30 plus years - Ford may have been terribly “credible” but no rational person could have concluded with even reasonable certainty that what she had to say was proved beyond a doubt......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.