Jump to content

Ford-Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Allegation


WestCanMan

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

This whole spectacle is a microcosm of what the Dems/media are doing to Trump - Bogus charges, media slander, FBI investigation, character assassination, changing goalposts, try to get target under oath, change course and impeach over something silly and unrelated.  Right now, the dems are more concerned with proving a Kavanaugh lie than anything else - guaranteed.  This should be an indicator of what the Mueller team would do if if they ever had Trump under oath. 

The difference here is that due to the bogus charges being filed on behalf a person rather than an idea or event, a  hearing had to be held.   

It's really sad to see how low those Dems will go to get their way. 

When Michelle OBlahblah said "When they go low, we go high", what that really meant was "We will keep on going low until they go low as well, and then we'll start to go high." They're still waiting for the Republicans to sink to their level, if that's even possible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, marcus said:

I have a feeling he drank beer excessively. 

 

I have a feeling that Democrats are far more worried about the fact that he will obey the constitution than they are about whether or not he was a serial gang-rapist.

Ted Kennedy left a drowning girl in his car and went home to bed, the Demmies still don't care at all. Bill Clinton preyed on his female employees, raping them and sexually harassing them, Dems now know all about it and they still don't say that "his victims need to be believed" lol - they don't care at all. There are two witnesses and actual evidence of Keith Ellison abusing his wife and the Dems just nominated him to run for Attorney General. The Dems obviously don't care about that either. Hollywood elites pretend to care that Kavanaugh was accused of the "attempted rape" of someone his own age, and yet they gave an Academy Award and a huge round of applause to a 43 year old Roman Polanski who roofied a 13 year old girl and then sodomized her. From Wiki: 

Quote

 

In March 1977, film director Roman Polanski was arrested and charged in Los Angeles with five offenses against Samantha Geimer, a 13-year-old girl[1] – rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.[2]  At his arraignment, Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges[3] but later accepted a plea bargain whose terms included dismissal of the five initial charges[4] in exchange for a guilty plea to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse.[4][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case 

 

 

This is an actual joint statement (ok it's just a summary of all their recent statements) from the Democrat party and the screen actor's guild:

Quote

 

Yay Bill and Ted for your most Excellent Adventures!!!! Yay Keith Ellison!!!! Yay Roman Polanski!!!!

Boo Kavanaugh!!!!!! We will destroy your life and your family!!!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wilber said:

One illusion went up in smoke during Kavanaugh’s reply, his impartiality. Guilty of these accusations or not, with that and his refusal to answer direct questions, he is not fit to sit on the Supreme Court.

The truth of the matter is that there was not enough evidence presented to even get a search warrant against him, even if the statute of limitations had not expired. "I don't remember where or when the event happened, and all of the people who I said were witnesses say that they didn't witness these events" isn't enough evidence to get a search warrant. Kavanuagh would never have had to answer to such vague accusations in the normal world.

Demmies want Kavanaugh to say "That crying woman is a liar" so that they can say "Look how mean he is to that crying woman", and that would be enough for them to defeat his nomination. It's just like when the Demmies wanted Trump to insult Putin right to his face (along with his whole country) just to give credibility to the Dems' own stupid Trump-Russia collusion "investigation".

Honestly when Dems speak it just tweaks my gag reflex something fierce.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The truth of the matter is that there was not enough evidence presented to even get a search warrant against him, even if the statute of limitations had not expired. "I don't remember where or when the event happened, and all of the people who I said were witnesses say that they didn't witness these events" isn't enough evidence to get a search warrant. Kavanuagh would never have had to answer to such vague accusations in the normal world.

Demmies want Kavanaugh to say "That crying woman is a liar" so that they can say "Look how mean he is to that crying woman", and that would be enough for them to defeat his nomination. It's just like when the Demmies wanted Trump to insult Putin right to his face (along with his whole country) just to give credibility to the Dems' own stupid Trump-Russia collusion "investigation".

Honestly when Dems speak it just tweaks my gag reflex something fierce.

 

The point is, Kavanaugh has shown his clear bias and has been deliberately evasive. What is the point of giving a lifetime judicial appointment to just another political operative? Kavanaugh has shown he is unsuitable for reasons other than these women's accusations. If the Americans want to strip legitimacy from their highest court, that's up to them but I think history will ultimately view Mitch McConnell as a real turd in the toilet of American politics and history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Wilber said:

The point is, Kavanaugh has shown his clear bias and has been deliberately evasive. What is the point of giving a lifetime judicial appointment to just another political operative? Kavanaugh has shown he is unsuitable for reasons other than these women's accusations. If the Americans want to strip legitimacy from their highest court, that's up to them but I think history will ultimately view Mitch McConnell as a real turd in the toilet of American politics and history.

So, the 300 unbiased papers he wrote mean nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Avenatti's client has the most interesting story line ever.

1st of all, it cracks me up. I burst out laughing the first time I saw it.

Sounds terrible right, that I find a rape allegation hilarious? It's only funny because it's not even a little bit believable.

Here's the thing, she says she went to ten parties where they were drugging and gang-raping girls. TEN!

If you were a school-aged girl and you went to a party where you witnessed something as horrific and grotesque as a gang-rape wouldn't you report that to someone? Or at the very least, not go to the next "party" with those same people? How fun does a party have to be so that you say to yourself "It was an awesome party but the harrowing sights & sounds of the gang-rape at the end kind of brought it down a notch. Still, I can't wait for the next one!"? I'm literally blown away that no one on tv even talks about that. What could possibly have compelled her to go to a second party? Was Prince there? Michael Jackson? Did someone win a free car?

And if for some crazy reason you went to a second party and the exact same thing happened again, wouldn't you quit right there? Nope, she went to a 3rd gang rape party. And she went to a 4th gang rape party. And she went to a 5th gang rape party. And she went to a 6th gang rape party. And she went to a 7th gang rape party. And she went to an 8th gang rape party. And then she went to two more gang rape parties. Is she really a "victim" now, or did she know exactly what was going to happen, and she basically consented to it by going there? By the 2nd or 3rd party she was actually more of an accomplice or co-conspirator than anything imo. Helping convince other girls to come to the parties.

It honestly seems like a stupid allegation to bring up, really easy to discount it after all these years where none of these hundreds of victims or witnesses said anything for 36 years lol. But here's the BRILLIANT part. I gotta hand it to Sleazanatti.... It really leaves the door wide open for more "victims" to come forward, and their testimony is pre-corroborated by that of his client. If twenty random girls come forward (and they get to become part of history by stopping a Trump nominee appointment so why not?) it all makes perfect sense to the Demmie crowd.

This is the ugliest, stupidest gong show to ever afflict a democratic society.

Lol.  She's claimed to have seen men lining up to rape their victim(s).....and yet she hanged around with this group of rapists  for more than two years.   Looks like all that time, she's been waiting for her turn to get raped! 

She must be among those rare breed of women who like it rough!

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I have a feeling that Democrats are far more worried about the fact that he will obey the constitution than they are about whether or not he was a serial gang-rapist.

Ted Kennedy left a drowning girl in his car and went home to bed, the Demmies still don't care at all. Bill Clinton preyed on his female employees, raping them and sexually harassing them, Dems now know all about it and they still don't say that "his victims need to be believed" lol - they don't care at all. There are two witnesses and actual evidence of Keith Ellison abusing his wife and the Dems just nominated him to run for Attorney General. The Dems obviously don't care about that either. Hollywood elites pretend to care that Kavanaugh was accused of the "attempted rape" of someone his own age, and yet they gave an Academy Award and a huge round of applause to a 43 year old Roman Polanski who roofied a 13 year old girl and then sodomized her. From Wiki: 

 

This is an actual joint statement (ok it's just a summary of all their recent statements) from the Democrat party and the screen actor's guild:

 

Yes, the Republicans should put a sexual assaulter on the Supreme Court because Roman Polanski won an Oscar once and he's a rapist too. Gotcha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Wilber said:

The point is, Kavanaugh has shown his clear bias and has been deliberately evasive. What is the point of giving a lifetime judicial appointment to just another political operative? Kavanaugh has shown he is unsuitable for reasons other than these women's accusations. If the Americans want to strip legitimacy from their highest court, that's up to them but I think history will ultimately view Mitch McConnell as a real turd in the toilet of American politics and history.

To be a Supreme Court judge, you need to have a passion for the Constitution and a passion for democracy. The Democrats have sullied both with their antics - and in the process, ruined Kavanaugh's personal life. If this travesty wouldn't invoke anger and disgust, I'd consider him brain dead and unable to connect with the people who should always be protected by the Constitution.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

To be a Supreme Court judge, you need to have a passion for the Constitution and a passion for democracy. The Democrats have sullied both with their antics - and in the process, ruined Kavanaugh's personal life. If this travesty wouldn't invoke anger and disgust, I'd consider him brain dead and unable to connect with the people who should always be protected by the Constitution.

The idea that an alleged act should override due process is more than concerning and is certainly not constitutional or within common-law tradition.   It really bothers me that people want to override the whole system of 'innocent until proven guilty' 

What we are seeing here is a type of  hatred that comes from relentless propagandizing from the radical left who don’t seem want to act in good faith and are too willing to throw men (or anyone) to the wolves if it suits their purpose.   I've also read that she misrepresented herself as records show she is not a registered psychologist.  

Interesting note  that, at the time, had she pressed charges it would’ve been only a misdemeanour and tried in juvenile court, with a statue of limitations, of one year. http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4951844/Police-and-State-s-Attorney-Response-to.pdf

I would also love to know if the Democrats got her permission to request the criminal investigation. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, scribblet said:

1. The idea that an alleged act should override due process is more than concerning and is certainly not constitutional or within common-law tradition.   It really bothers me that people want to override the whole system of 'innocent until proven guilty' 

2. What we are seeing here is a type of  hatred that comes from relentless propagandizing from the radical left

 

1.  Nope.  It's a job interview, and so his behaviour is relevant.  The Moral Majority puts its blinders on when it's time to look at themselves.  Womanizing and binge drinking is ok if it's their people.

2. Extremely absurd.  The arrogance of these people is stunning...   Saturday Night Live's Michael Ché said it best:

“So why does it have to be him ? You can't just pick another dude from your illuminati lizard meetings ?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are the Republicans so welded to a candidate that does not have the confidence of a large segment of American society? Judges must not only be impartial, but must also be percieved as impartial. Judge Kavanaugh's statement regarding the Clintons and the Democrats should disqualify him just as if a candidate made the same statements against the Trumps and the Republicans. 

The hatred embeded in American politics mystifies me. Democracy only thrives if we don't take it too seriously. We need politicians who can debate with each other but still enjoy friendship with each other. We need to rely on Judges who make objective decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Why are the Republicans so welded to a candidate that does not have the confidence of a large segment of American society? Judges must not only be impartial, but must also be percieved as impartial. Judge Kavanaugh's statement regarding the Clintons and the Democrats should disqualify him just as if a candidate made the same statements against the Trumps and the Republicans. 

The hatred embeded in American politics mystifies me. Democracy only thrives if we don't take it too seriously. We need politicians who can debate with each other but still enjoy friendship with each other. We need to rely on Judges who make objective decisions.

Agreed.  As a perception for the rest of us, Kavanaughs impartiality went out the window when he was nominated by Trump.  He was nominated because he thinks the Prez is all powerful.  That he is probably all they need to launch a solid challenge to Roe v Wade was just a sop to the Evangelicals.  Trump doesn't give a toss.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Why are the Republicans so welded to a candidate that does not have the confidence of a large segment of American society? Judges must not only be impartial, but must also be percieved as impartial. Judge Kavanaugh's statement regarding the Clintons and the Democrats should disqualify him just as if a candidate made the same statements against the Trumps and the Republicans. 

The hatred embeded in American politics mystifies me. Democracy only thrives if we don't take it too seriously. We need politicians who can debate with each other but still enjoy friendship with each other. We need to rely on Judges who make objective decisions.

I must've missed something about Kavanaugh's background as a Federal judge.  That's the newest talking point now....seen that brought up by several anti-Kavanaughs in another forum.

Let me ask you.....

In his 12 years experience as a judge, was there EVER a complaint against his temperament and  his bias?  I don't think so.

 

In fact, just only a month or so ago....

Quote

 

American Bar Association gives Brett Kavanaugh a unanimous 'well-qualified' rating

 

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh is “well qualified” to hold a seat on the Supreme Court, the American Bar Association said Friday, giving President Trump’s nominee another boost heading into next week’s confirmation hearing.

The ABA’s federal judiciary committee gave its unanimous rating to Judge Kavanaugh, who has sat for a dozen years on the circuit court of appeals in Washington, earning high marks for his approach to judging.

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/31/american-bar-association-gives-brett-kavanaugh-una/

 

So, don't buy into the Dems' bull.

 

We should keep in mind that Kavanaugh wasn't in that senate room last Thursday, sitting as a judge!  He was there in the fight of his life - fighting for his name/reputation, his family, all the years he spent building his career, his legacy!

What we witnessed last Thursday was a man being screwed and gang-raped by rabid Democrats bent on demonizing him in their desperate effort to get rid of him!  We witnessed his rights to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, trampled on national tv!

 

Edited by betsy
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

1. Why are the Republicans so welded to a candidate that does not have the confidence of a large segment of American society?  

2. The hatred embeded in American politics mystifies me. Democracy only thrives if we don't take it too seriously.

3. We need politicians who can debate with each other but still enjoy friendship with each other.

4. We need to rely on Judges who make objective decisions.

1. Did you see how he danced, evaded and non-answered when asked if he spoken to Trump's lawyers ?  Of course that's the reason.  There is a criminal in the Oval Office and they need a vote for when his impeachment goes to the SC.

2. They are fighting for things important to them, and it has always been so and has always been taken seriously.

3. I think we need people who come from the lower classes not people who were in the same frat.

4. They need to buy in to a political process of some kind, not an endless set of appeals to populist know-nothings.   Let's see if anyone gets the last reference...

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. They need to buy in to a political process of some kind,

My point is the selection of a Judge should not be political. Both political parties are guilty of trying to stack the court with "liberals" or "conservatives" rather than judicious intelligent persons who are able to dispense justice fairly. 

Innocent or guilty, a candidate for the SCOTUS should not be contriversial. A candidate should be someone with overwhelming support. My fear is this animosity between politicians is beginning to spill into Canada. Many years ago, I ran for a provincial seat for the Progessive Conservative Party and at an all candidates forum, I was getting tips from another candidate who happened to be the leader of the Liberal Party. The meeting was boistrous but not acrimonious. That level of respect is fading and we are poorer for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

My point is the selection of a Judge should not be political. Both political parties are guilty of trying to stack the court with "liberals" or "conservatives" rather than judicious intelligent persons who are able to dispense justice fairly. 

Innocent or guilty, a candidate for the SCOTUS should not be contriversial. A candidate should be someone with overwhelming support. My fear is this animosity between politicians is beginning to spill into Canada. Many years ago, I ran for a provincial seat for the Progessive Conservative Party and at an all candidates forum, I was getting tips from another candidate who happened to be the leader of the Liberal Party. The meeting was boistrous but not acrimonious. That level of respect is fading and we are poorer for it.

I also worry that we are headed in the same (wrong)  direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, betsy said:

I must've missed something about Kavanaugh's background as a Federal judge.  That's the newest talking point now....seen that brought up by several anti-Kavanaughs in another forum.

Let me ask you.....

In his 12 years experience as a judge, was there EVER a complaint against his temperament and  his bias?  I don't think so.

 

In fact, just only a month or so ago....

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/31/american-bar-association-gives-brett-kavanaugh-una/

 

So, don't buy into the Dems' bull.

 

We should keep in mind that Kavanaugh wasn't in that senate room last Thursday, sitting as a judge!  He was there in the fight of his life - fighting for his name/reputation, his family, all the years he spent building his career, his legacy!

What we witnessed last Thursday was a man being screwed and gang-raped by rabid Democrats bent on demonizing him in their desperate effort to get rid of him!  We witnessed his rights to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, trampled on national tv!

 

I missed him getting gang raped. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

1. My point is the selection of a Judge should not be political. Both political parties are guilty of trying to stack the court with "liberals" or "conservatives" rather than judicious intelligent persons who are able to dispense justice fairly. 

2. Innocent or guilty, a candidate for the SCOTUS should not be contriversial. A candidate should be someone with overwhelming support.

3. My fear is this animosity between politicians is beginning to spill into Canada. 

4. That level of respect is fading and we are poorer for it.

1. Yes, it's another symptom of the divisiveness, and the root problem (IMO) of endless conflict serving an entertainment need of sorts.

2. We have at least one generation of people who don't know what objectivity even is, who don't believe it could exist, and who believe "fair and balanced" is actually an trademark, and an apt one for an Australian's right-wing propaganda network.  

3. Beginning to ?  I saw Doug Ford declare himself pro-Trump on camera.  The 'angry idiot' populism is already here my friend.

4. I miss Larry Grossman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Don Jonas said:

I missed him getting gang raped. 

Yes, more hyperbolic horse-shit who actually use the term 'rape' for questioning an alleged rapists.  

Don - understand this: politics was not meant for hyperbolic types and angry idiots who go on anonymous forums and post without any ethics, or principles.  If any candidate I had supported came out in favour of sexual assault, you can bet I would condemn them and vote for their opponents.  Not so for many on here, especially the one you are responding to.  You need to learn who is worthy of response and block the rest IMO.

As I have said, most of what is happening fills an entertainment need and this judicial drama is being held over one week due to popular demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, betsy said:

So, don't buy into the Dems' bull.

That is part of the problem. Why are the Democrats and Republicans so hostile over this candidate? Obviously there are moderates on both sides who should be able to propose a candidate they can both support. Remember, it was Barry Goldwater and his friend Jack Kennedy who planned to  campaign together in the 1964 election. The US (and Canada) need to work hard towards regaining that kind of mutual respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

My fear is this animosity between politicians is beginning to spill into Canada. Many years ago, I ran for a provincial seat for the Progessive Conservative Party and at an all candidates forum, I was getting tips from another candidate who happened to be the leader of the Liberal Party. The meeting was boistrous but not acrimonious. That level of respect is fading and we are poorer for it.

It's been mentioned several times - we've had a paradigm shift in the last 25 years that's become more and more pronounced. When the Left is in power, the "opposition" - as reported by the media - is generally accepting of the results. When the so-called Right wins, there are immediate cries that democracy is being trampled.

Why the big difference? From my vantage point, as many others have noted - it's the Liberal lens of Left-leaning media and academics who are so willing to cheer on the social engineering guided by a socialist ideology - aided and abetted by unions whose influence admittedly is slowly waning.

When the Clintons and Obama were creating the conditions that led to Trump's election - the Right wasn't demonstrating....the media wasn't whining about America's waning influence in world affairs - his toothless "lines in the sand" - the massive problems with Obamacare. Not being an American, I'm sure there was much, much more to complain about but either the Trump-like protests never happened or were never reported. The Obama years were pretty "media muted".

Here in Canada, Mike Harris won two majority governments and transformed a government that was deficit-ridden to the extent that credit rating agencies had hit us with credit downgrades and higher debt interest - and over a million people on welfare. Yet he was continually pilloried in the media and demonstrations by the Left were virtually non-stop. 

Then came the McGuinty/Wynne years. Protests, demonstrations? Hardly any - the Right sucked it up and took it. And now we've got Doug Ford - and again the Left are at it with demonstrations and lawsuits.

What has happened is completely predictable - just a matter of time really. It wasn't the Fake News - it's the Censored News - and Americans were tired of it. Ontarians tired of it too. Next up is Trudeau - who more than anyone exemplifies Censored News.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...