the LINK has no video. It's a point by point explanation of why the Prosecutor says Ford's case is all weak and has no substance.

It literally says:
The sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford about her allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has released a memo detailing inconsistencies in Ford’s testimony.

“I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee,” Rachel Mitchell wrote in a five-page-long memo obtained by The Washington Post. “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that.”

and then she goes over point by point.

Did you even LOOK at the link?

There is nothing to refute here unless you want to attack Rachel Mitchell and her credentials and expertise. It's because she's a woman, right?

Bottom line is, that pretty much all the mainstream media sources have said the same thing in regards to Ford's testimony, which has many holes. Since you asked why I used a conservative site, I must ask why is it any better to use a liberal site? While the Federalist is a known conservative site, if you took the time to research their background, you would find they received a solid rating for reporting facts, when I'm back on here later I'll see if I can find the website I'm referring to that fact checks media sources.

The ironic part in your statement is that you post articles on this site from the Intellectualist which leans heavily to the left. The question is, why is a liberal source of news any better than a conservative one? Have we really arrived to a point where only one side tells the absolute truth while the other lies? If you check both the Federalist and Intellectualist, you'll find both have been rated high on presenting facts- [mediabiasfactcheck.com]
Most of the mainstream media sources have said the same thing, there are holes in Ford's memory and said memories may not be trustworthy, but those on the left who hate Kavanaugh don't like that as that doesn't fit their narrative. Then Democrats wonder why Republicans get suspicious of their motives, just look at the timing for all of this... the Democrats have a tendency to hurt their own causes and a big part of why they lost the last election. Truth be told, I'm fed up with both sides arguing over such nonsense, the political mudslinging gets old after awhile. I'm convinced both sides allow their emotions to control them and only see things from their point of view. As for me, I go by evidence, and the evidence I've observed so far indicates Ford's memory is not 100% trustworthy, sorry if that doesn't fit your's or anyone else's narrative.

You only see it from the left wing liberal side. The attack on Kavanaugh is nothing more than a democrat attempt to keep Trump from putting another good judge on the US Supreme Court. It would be a lot more respectable and not near as divisive if the democrats just said Kavanaugh was too conservative and they didn’t want him on the court that to wage the dirty war on him by dragging his name through the mud like they have been doing. Hell I hope he is confirmed and remembers the democrats treatment of him in his judgements for the next 40 years!! @Spiketalon

The Federalist is a very conservative group. Of course they cropped the video an dherry picked clips. They produce propaganda, not journalism or unbiased analysis.

So, then you are saying that Rachel Mitchell is incompetent and didn't do her job correctly and shouldn't be allowed to offer her EXPERT opinion? Why? Because her opinion goes against what you believe?

hmmmmmmmmmmm......who is really doing the cherry picking around here.....

@SkotlandSkye I said nothing of the sort. Please read my comment again.

See? I warned you. You can't post anything that goes against public opinion especially facts. Facts aren't welcome here.

@SkotlandSkye Cherry picked and edited video clips are not edited to be factual, but for propaganda purposes.

The Federalist is a very conservative (right wing) group.

@snytiger6 the LINK has no video. It's a point by point explanation of why the Prosecutor says Ford's case is all weak and has no substance.

It literally says:
The sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford about her allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has released a memo detailing inconsistencies in Ford’s testimony.

“I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee,” Rachel Mitchell wrote in a five-page-long memo obtained by The Washington Post. “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that.”

and then she goes over point by point.

Did you even LOOK at the link?

There is nothing to refute here unless you want to attack Rachel Mitchell and her credentials and expertise. It's because she's a woman, right?

@snytiger6 I could say the same of The Intellectualist, they spew propaganda too, but of course you see nothing wrong with them though because their views fit your world view narrative. I picked The Federalist this time to share an article from because said article told the truth, there have been plenty of documented holes in Ford's testimony. I don't mind you picking on a conservative site if you feel you must, I just find that much to be ironic coming from someone who fully trusts a known liberal source, as if the liberal left only tells the absolute truth all the time...

@SpikeTalon I tend to trust sites which base their articles more on known facts, than speculation.

The reason why the right attacks science and education, is because proven facts more stongly support the leftist positions, because they start with fact and evolve their views from those points. The right tends to develop their fiews and then go out looking for what supports their viewpoint, much li8ek many religions do, which is why the right wingg and religions tend to like each other.

I do admit the left often exagerates a bit, and I would prefer they didn't, but they are dealing with adversaryies who claim proven facts are wrong, or area a part of a comspiracy an dlikes to drive voters with fear into voting against their own best interests Under such circimpstances it woudl be hard to hold back exaggerating a bit to fight back.

I'd like to see the Fairness doctrine restored. Since Regan removed it, media has become a lot more partisan in general and peopel in general are a lot less informed when they go to the polls. The lack of the Fairness doctrine has hurt both sides, and there have been no breaks to partisanship to a point where now the right wing tends to actively avoid condemning Nazis

@snytiger6 Who exactly determines who has the facts? How do you automatically know something to be true just because someone else said so? Facts don't necessarily swing in favor of either political side. Religion has nothing to do with conservatism, religion is theocracy, and radical religion has long infiltrated the Republican party. I suspect most people who are not right-leaning don't even know what it means to be a true conservative these days. I also contend that most people regardless of political affiliation seek out sources that would reinforce their own world views, saying only the conservatives do that is not only erroneous but just plain wrong. I could think of quite a few things that the liberal left has done and continues to do that have negative consequences for the general public.

Now, you want to talk about fear tactics? Once again, the left does this too. One example off the top of my head is the fear mongering from the left over healthcare, scaring people that if the ACA is done away with people will die, which is grossly untrue as healthcare is readily available regardless of what happens to the ACA. Look at the fear mongering over North Korea, peace is being established thanks to Trump little by little and yet there is nothing but pessimism coming from the left. No one knows for sure what the future holds, but that situation looks promising, and needless fear mongering helps nothing with that much.

Regarding the last part of your comment, perhaps some of those on the right feel no immediate need to jump to conclusions, and I have not witnessed any politician go out of their way to support hate groups. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one though. On the flip side, the progressive left have and continue to put their support behind radical and at times violent groups like ANTIFA, but some are quick to come down on the right for being passive towards some hate groups. ANTIFA is no good for our society, I'm all for peaceful protests but those folks are mentally disturbed. You don't seem to see those on the right protesting like that and vandalizing property like ANTIFA is known for, and the big A is about as left as they come. Please stop trying to act like the left is the innocent victim and the right is the big bad wolf, there are plenty of things wrong with the left. As I see it, if we want any hope of striking a balance in our country the only thing that may bring about genuine and positive change would be to get rid of the two-party monopoly and elect a neutral third party. Both extremes are hurting us, and will only continue doing so. Please note my restraint on some Democrats like Maxine Waters who has publicly asked liberals to ostracize and harass conservatives at restaurants and other businesses, how on earth does that do anything to advance understanding between the two sides, and many liberals are backing Waters up no less.

Lastly, since you mentioned about fairness and the right sympathizing with hate groups like nazis, I must add a good majority of those on this site who lean to left and which I've had interactions with on the topic of politics have displayed a vile and vindictive attitude eerily similar to that of the nazis, to some of those folks it's as if they only want one side to be presented here and would stop at nothing to silence any opposing views. Some of the private messages I've received were far worse than anything mentioned on the public posts, from some nut suggesting I use one of my guns on myself and do the world a favor to someone suggesting I walk off of a cliff, you get the idea I'm sure.

I say what I say sometimes because the direction our country is going in concerns me, from both sides of the argument, and I only try to help to get others to think more deeply about the issues that are shaping our lives. There have been alot of those on this site who lean left that have demonstrated to me that they are not interested in civil conversation, only downing and criticizing views that may make them uncomfortable. You aren't one of them though, and I thank you for that and for taking the time to explain your views in adequate detail. The next time you are tempted to readily accept whatever your favored media sources tell you, challenge yourself to think more beyond what was mentioned to you. I too have media sources I like, but I don't believe everything they say.

I'm positive the progressive liberals would want everyone to quit their jobs and become strictly dependent on the government...

@SpikeTalon Well, not EVERYONE. Since you're a white male, you don't qualify for any government aid. You need to work until you drop dead of a heart attack. But you need to work at Walmart so that you don't have anything worth suing you over. You certainly aren't entitled to any wealth you create.