Kavanaugh/Ford Opinion Threads -- Monday Sept 24th 2018

[joaquinmiller]

Good...you support a full FBI investigation of these allegations......I wonder why Kavanaugh and the GOP does not.

Because the FBI has no jurisdiction over local cases from 30+ years ago....

The FBI had jurisdiction in the Hill/Thomas accusations because they allegedly happened at a federal agency.

Jurisdiction for prosecution....what is wrong with investigating the truth in these matters like they did with Clarence Thomas? What is the GOP afraid of?

Again, the accusations were about something that happened at a federal agency, involving federal employees.

If you want to investigate, fine, find the appropriate authority, and use it to impeach Kavenaugh when the investigation is completed if you can prove any of it.

Until then, this is just a stalling tactic and the worst form of politics.

The FBI conducts background checks on all nominees to the federal judiciary. The federal employee thing is a red mackerel.

A background check is not an "investigation"

A background check relies on documentation from other agencies and government bodies, as well as interviews with select people to corroborate any documentation provided.

Kavenaugh has already been through numerous background checks by the FBI due to his multiple involvements with federal positions.

I used the wrong term. The FBI uses the term background investigations, as it relates to judicial nominees.

 

[martybegan]

Because the FBI has no jurisdiction over local cases from 30+ years ago....

The FBI had jurisdiction in the Hill/Thomas accusations because they allegedly happened at a federal agency.

Jurisdiction for prosecution....what is wrong with investigating the truth in these matters like they did with Clarence Thomas? What is the GOP afraid of?

Again, the accusations were about something that happened at a federal agency, involving federal employees.

If you want to investigate, fine, find the appropriate authority, and use it to impeach Kavenaugh when the investigation is completed if you can prove any of it.

Until then, this is just a stalling tactic and the worst form of politics.

The FBI conducts background checks on all nominees to the federal judiciary. The federal employee thing is a red mackerel.

A background check is not an "investigation"

A background check relies on documentation from other agencies and government bodies, as well as interviews with select people to corroborate any documentation provided.

Kavenaugh has already been through numerous background checks by the FBI due to his multiple involvements with federal positions.

I used the wrong term. The FBI uses the term background investigations, as it relates to judicial nominees.

And that has already been done. Considering none of these accusations have any corroborating paperwork, we are left with the statements of all parties, which will happen at the hearing.

 

[Penelope]

`

Brett Kavanaugh's prospects of being confirmed to the Supreme Court suffered another major setback on Sunday night when a second woman accused him of sexual assault decades ago, and a prominent lawyer took to Twitter claiming a third woman has "credible information" on the high court nominee.

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are investigating another allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh, according to The New Yorker. Deborah Ramirez, who is 53, told the magazine that when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale in the 1983-84 academic school year, she remembers that he “exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.”

Kavanaugh flatly denied the allegation, calling it a last-minute smear. But his confirmation now appears to be in serious doubt. Most Senate Republicans had vowed to push forward with his nomination after securing a Thursday hearing with Christine Blasey Ford, who went public a week ago with her allegation that Kavanaugh sexually attacked her at a high school party.- Source​

`
`
When it rains, it pours. Poor Brett can't seem to get a break here.
`

These MUST be investigated and, if found to be false, the women should be jailed for ten years...plus their cats too!!!

Greg

But that’s the thing! These crimes aren’t provable or unprovable, not without physical evidence—which just adds to the suspicion the accusations are bullshit.

Look at how Anita Hill was treated, and it use to be much different for women accusing men of sexual assaults. In Maryland you had to prove you fought the man off. Can you imagine a young female at this time or any time, many rapes go unreported due to fear of retaliation, embarrassment of peers and family, and yet you are a female of what 34. You were in diapers when this happened, and only about 7 years old when Anita Hill was questioned.

Thank goodness for the women's liberation movement, as even high powered actresses are coming forward with Cosby, who by the way is being sentenced today. The year of 1992 was the year of the women, and today not one women GOP sits on the judicial committees side.

Women like RBG participated in the women liberation movement. You have it good as a woman today , due to all who came before you and the women who are coming forward today.

Am I really reading what I think I’m reading? Are you actually saying it’s a woman’s right to ASSIGN GUILT?

NO ONE, regardless of sex, has the right to assign guilt by accusation. This isn’t about women’s rights. It’s about human rights and upholding the principles of law in America, like innocent until proven guilty and guilt needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have already said the accusations are BS:

But that’s the thing! These crimes aren’t provable or unprovable, not without physical evidence—which just adds to the suspicion the accusations are bullshit.

I have already told you , you were in diapers when this happened and young females and older ones did not report the crimes of sexual assaults and many go unreported as well today.

 

[captkaos]

(1). If you have no corroborating evidence or witnesses, STFU.
(2). If you did not mention the matter to a reliable person CONTEMPORANEOUSLY with the event, STFU.
(3). If you hire an attorney in advance of making your accusation, your credibility drops 90%.
(4). If you have ever worn a "pussy hat" in public STFU.
(5). If you are a partisan for the "other side," your credibility drops 75%.
(6). If you were under the influence of any mind or mood altering substance, voluntarily consumed, your credibility drops at least 50%.
(7). There is an absolute "statute of limitations" of ten years.

Now, is there anything to discuss?

I think not.

Let's get on with it.

It is my understanding that Dr Ford has as many as 5 #gofundme accounts totalling $500,000.00. It's clear the motivation here is money. People are trying to cash in.
I could claim the judge groped me when I was in college in 83'. Maybe I could pay a few bills with the cash I might get from making this false accusation.

 

[2aguy]

She has nothing to fear as long as she doesn't wear sunglasses, so that rules out the need for security. It doesn't take $150k to buy a round trip ticket to Washington.
Frankly, I don't think she'll ever show. Thus the second and third accusations were floated.

Regardless of out come her career is enhanced ( see Anita hill ). She might get book deals. Fees for public speaking engagements ( which antifa will never protest ). Expert consultation payments.
The list goes on.

And of course she may get the satisfaction of stopping a trump appointment which alone could be huge motive

Only if she has the courage to show up.
Feinstein is trying to call it off now, so I doubt she ever shows.

How is Feinstein trying to call it off and why?

She sent a letter to Grassley within mins of the Ramirez accusations demanding they call off the hearing Thursday and begin an FBI investigation.

If the FBI is asked and agrees to investigate then Kavanaugh will likely be pulled as a nominee.

Soon after that the investigation peters out with nothing.

The Dems win and everyone spends years arguing about he did he did not.

It was made clear today on the Dan and Amy radio show why the FBI investigated the Anita Hill accusation...... The time of the alleged abuse, both she and Thomas were federal employees....and the alleged incident happened on federal property....that is why the FBI investigated the Hill accusations...and why there is no reason for them to investigate a local allegation of groping.........

You should pass that info. around when the left wing nutters try to use it.....

 

[BookShaka]

`

Brett Kavanaugh's prospects of being confirmed to the Supreme Court suffered another major setback on Sunday night when a second woman accused him of sexual assault decades ago, and a prominent lawyer took to Twitter claiming a third woman has "credible information" on the high court nominee.

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are investigating another allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh, according to The New Yorker. Deborah Ramirez, who is 53, told the magazine that when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale in the 1983-84 academic school year, she remembers that he “exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.”

Kavanaugh flatly denied the allegation, calling it a last-minute smear. But his confirmation now appears to be in serious doubt. Most Senate Republicans had vowed to push forward with his nomination after securing a Thursday hearing with Christine Blasey Ford, who went public a week ago with her allegation that Kavanaugh sexually attacked her at a high school party.- Source​

`
`
When it rains, it pours. Poor Brett can't seem to get a break here.
`

These MUST be investigated and, if found to be false, the women should be jailed for ten years...plus their cats too!!!

Greg

But that’s the thing! These crimes aren’t provable or unprovable, not without physical evidence—which just adds to the suspicion the accusations are bullshit.

Look at how Anita Hill was treated, and it use to be much different for women accusing men of sexual assaults. In Maryland you had to prove you fought the man off. Can you imagine a young female at this time or any time, many rapes go unreported due to fear of retaliation, embarrassment of peers and family, and yet you are a female of what 34. You were in diapers when this happened, and only about 7 years old when Anita Hill was questioned.

Thank goodness for the women's liberation movement, as even high powered actresses are coming forward with Cosby, who by the way is being sentenced today. The year of 1992 was the year of the women, and today not one women GOP sits on the judicial committees side.

Women like RBG participated in the women liberation movement. You have it good as a woman today , due to all who came before you and the women who are coming forward today.

Am I really reading what I think I’m reading? Are you actually saying it’s a woman’s right to ASSIGN GUILT?

NO ONE, regardless of sex, has the right to assign guilt by accusation. This isn’t about women’s rights. It’s about human rights and upholding the principles of law in America, like innocent until proven guilty and guilt needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have already said the accusations are BS:

But that’s the thing! These crimes aren’t provable or unprovable, not without physical evidence—which just adds to the suspicion the accusations are bullshit.

I have already told you , you were in diapers when this happened and young females and older ones did not report the crimes of sexual assaults and many go unreported as well today.

What is your point? And me saying the fact the crimes aren’t provable adds to the suspicion they’re bs isn’t the same as calling them bs.

My age has nothing to do with me questioning if you believe women’s rights mean the right to be believed no matter what. So good job at not acknowledging my points and dodging my questions.

 

[captkaos]

That's so funny I almost pee'd myself, I'm a male Maybe I should "leak" that Justice Ruth Bader -Ginsburg Groped me when I was visiting the Supreme court on a field trip in middle school. Yea I know I wasn't in middle school when she was on the bench But Who cares I should be believed. Maybe it was my Son I really can't remember but honest it happened The old scag reached out to shake my hand and grabbed my junk and said Hello Big boy That good enough ?

 

[2aguy]

(1). If you have no corroborating evidence or witnesses, STFU.
(2). If you did not mention the matter to a reliable person CONTEMPORANEOUSLY with the event, STFU.
(3). If you hire an attorney in advance of making your accusation, your credibility drops 90%.
(4). If you have ever worn a "pussy hat" in public STFU.
(5). If you are a partisan for the "other side," your credibility drops 75%.
(6). If you were under the influence of any mind or mood altering substance, voluntarily consumed, your credibility drops at least 50%.
(7). There is an absolute "statute of limitations" of ten years.

Now, is there anything to discuss?

I think not.

Let's get on with it.

Wonderful. A list of crutches for assaulters.

1) Make sure you do it in private;
2) Make sure you shame the victim with some hideous degrading act that they won't want to talk about
3) If the victim dares to try to defend herself --- she's toast
4) Dictating how people can dress now? Really fascist? Going with the "she was asking for it" crutch? That still works?
5) She's only a victim if she's got my political football team's letter after her name. Isn't that instructive.
6) Buy her drinks because that somehow relieves you of responsibility
7) why?

(1). If you have no corroborating evidence or witnesses, STFU.
(2). If you did not mention the matter to a reliable person CONTEMPORANEOUSLY with the event, STFU.
(3). If you hire an attorney in advance of making your accusation, your credibility drops 90%.
(4). If you have ever worn a "pussy hat" in public STFU.
(5). If you are a partisan for the "other side," your credibility drops 75%.
(6). If you were under the influence of any mind or mood altering substance, voluntarily consumed, your credibility drops at least 50%.
(7). There is an absolute "statute of limitations" of ten years.

Now, is there anything to discuss?

I think not.

Let's get on with it.

Wonderful. A list of crutches for assaulters.

1) Make sure you do it in private;
2) Make sure you shame the victim with some hideous degrading act that they won't want to talk about
3) If the victim dares to try to defend herself --- she's toast
4) Dictating how people can dress now? Really fascist? Going with the "she was asking for it" crutch? That still works?
5) She's only a victim if she's got my political football team's letter after her name. Isn't that instructive.
6) Buy her drinks because that somehow relieves you of responsibility
7) why?

Wrong....you don't know what you are talking about......in both the Ford fake allegations, and now Ramirez....neither one remembers key details of the alleged attack, and neither of them have any witnesses who say the attack happened or that they ever saw Kavanaugh in either place....big fucking difference....

10 Serious Problems With New Accusations Against Kavanaugh

1. The New Yorker could not find a single witness who could put Kavanaugh at the alleged party.

Buried more than 1,000 words into the report, Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer wrote:

The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.

2. The New York Times could not find a single person who could corroborate Ramirez's claims.

The New York Times likewise could not find a single witness to backup her allegations:

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge.

3. The man accused of egging on Kavanaugh denied Ramirez's allegations and vouched for Kavanaugh's character.

Buried more than 1,400 words into The New Yorker story, Farrow and Mayer provide a quote from one of the men named by Ramirez:

One of the male classmates who Ramirez said egged on Kavanaugh denied any memory of the party. "I don’t think Brett would flash himself to Debbie, or anyone, for that matter," he said. Asked why he thought Ramirez was making the allegation, he responded, "I have no idea." The other male classmate who Ramirez said was involved in the incident commented, "I have zero recollection."

4. A third person that Ramirez claimed was at the party says she was not there for the alleged incident.

The classmate, who was not named, said that "she was not present at the incident."

5. Ramirez contacted her former classmates, asking about the incident, and admitted she was not sure that Kavanaugh was the male who exposed himself.

The Times' report states:

Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

6. A woman who claims she was "best friends" with Ramirez says Ramirez never mentioned the story and initially said her friend's accusations against Kavanaugh might be "politically motivated."

Buried nearly 1,700 words into the New Yorker piece, the report states:

The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, “This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.” She said she hadn’t spoken with Ramirez for about ten years, but that the two women had been close all through college, and Kavanaugh had remained part of what she called their “larger social circle.” In an initial conversation with The New Yorker, she suggested that Ramirez may have been politically motivated. Later, she said that she did not know if this was the case.

7. Ramirez, just like Christine Blasey Ford, is a registered Democrat and is dedicated to leftist causes.
----

8. Ramirez wasn't even sure her memory was correct — until she spent six days going over it with her Democrat lawyer.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Jurisdiction for prosecution....what is wrong with investigating the truth in these matters like they did with Clarence Thomas? What is the GOP afraid of?

Again, the accusations were about something that happened at a federal agency, involving federal employees.

If you want to investigate, fine, find the appropriate authority, and use it to impeach Kavenaugh when the investigation is completed if you can prove any of it.

Until then, this is just a stalling tactic and the worst form of politics.

The FBI conducts background checks on all nominees to the federal judiciary. The federal employee thing is a red mackerel.

A background check is not an "investigation"

A background check relies on documentation from other agencies and government bodies, as well as interviews with select people to corroborate any documentation provided.

Kavenaugh has already been through numerous background checks by the FBI due to his multiple involvements with federal positions.

I used the wrong term. The FBI uses the term background investigations, as it relates to judicial nominees.

And that has already been done. Considering none of these accusations have any corroborating paperwork, we are left with the statements of all parties, which will happen at the hearing.

The background investigation may be re-opened. It's a political decision, not a legal one.

 

[2aguy]

That's so funny I almost pee'd myself, I'm a male Maybe I should "leak" that Justice Ruth Bader -Ginsburg Groped me when I was visiting the Supreme court on a field trip in middle school. Yea I know I wasn't in middle school when she was on the bench But Who cares I should be believed. Maybe it was my Son I really can't remember but honest it happened The old scag reached out to shake my hand and grabbed my junk and said Hello Big boy That good enough ?

Hey.... you can site me as a witness, and then I too will say I didn't see or hear anything.....that seems to be all the New Yorker needs to run a story....

 

[joaquinmiller]

Good...you support a full FBI investigation of these allegations......I wonder why Kavanaugh and the GOP does not.

Because the FBI has no jurisdiction over local cases from 30+ years ago....

The FBI had jurisdiction in the Hill/Thomas accusations because they allegedly happened at a federal agency.

Jurisdiction for prosecution....what is wrong with investigating the truth in these matters like they did with Clarence Thomas? What is the GOP afraid of?

Again, the accusations were about something that happened at a federal agency, involving federal employees.

If you want to investigate, fine, find the appropriate authority, and use it to impeach Kavenaugh when the investigation is completed if you can prove any of it.

Until then, this is just a stalling tactic and the worst form of politics.

The FBI conducts background checks on all nominees to the federal judiciary. The federal employee thing is a red mackerel.

Ummmmm, no

No, what?

 

[miketx]

....Really, this, right?

 

[martybegan]

Again, the accusations were about something that happened at a federal agency, involving federal employees.

If you want to investigate, fine, find the appropriate authority, and use it to impeach Kavenaugh when the investigation is completed if you can prove any of it.

Until then, this is just a stalling tactic and the worst form of politics.

The FBI conducts background checks on all nominees to the federal judiciary. The federal employee thing is a red mackerel.

A background check is not an "investigation"

A background check relies on documentation from other agencies and government bodies, as well as interviews with select people to corroborate any documentation provided.

Kavenaugh has already been through numerous background checks by the FBI due to his multiple involvements with federal positions.

I used the wrong term. The FBI uses the term background investigations, as it relates to judicial nominees.

And that has already been done. Considering none of these accusations have any corroborating paperwork, we are left with the statements of all parties, which will happen at the hearing.

The background investigation may be re-opened. It's a political decision, not a legal one.

Why? The whole point of a background check is to provide information to the person appointing the subject, and in this case to the committee voting on their nomination.

Since there is no documentation of either of these accusations, a further check would be pointless.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

....Really, this, right?

View attachment 218211

Amazing how that works.

Wait until PizzaGate is exposed

 

[Roudy]

Sexual allegations do not apply to Democrats.

 

[BlackFlag]

....Really, this, right?

View attachment 218211

^ Lol this rape enabler’s posting phony graphics calling for victims to be believed, while he spends his time enabling rapists and demonizing women.

 

[miketx]

....Really, this, right?

View attachment 218211

^ Lol this rape enabler’s posting phony graphics calling for victims to be believed, while he spends his time enabling rapists and demonizing women.

Just posting the facts traitor.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

....Really, this, right?

View attachment 218211

^ Lol this rape enabler’s posting phony graphics calling for victims to be believed, while he spends his time enabling rapists and demonizing women.

Just posting the facts traitor.

You got BlackFag on defense. Won't change Democrat dirty tricks, but they know they've been exposed.

 

[Windparadox]

`
Never go to school with people you think will be politicians. But if you do, document, document, document.

 

[joaquinmiller]

The FBI conducts background checks on all nominees to the federal judiciary. The federal employee thing is a red mackerel.

A background check is not an "investigation"

A background check relies on documentation from other agencies and government bodies, as well as interviews with select people to corroborate any documentation provided.

Kavenaugh has already been through numerous background checks by the FBI due to his multiple involvements with federal positions.

I used the wrong term. The FBI uses the term background investigations, as it relates to judicial nominees.

And that has already been done. Considering none of these accusations have any corroborating paperwork, we are left with the statements of all parties, which will happen at the hearing.

The background investigation may be re-opened. It's a political decision, not a legal one.

Why? The whole point of a background check is to provide information to the person appointing the subject, and in this case to the committee voting on their nomination.

Since there is no documentation of either of these accusations, a further check would be pointless.

Right. In an ethical administration, the man making the appointment would request the FBI look into Blasey Ford's allegations, including questioning any alleged witnesses.

I know that's out of the question.