Jump to content

Ford-Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Allegation


WestCanMan

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Yes - it would be - pretty easy. All the FBI have to do is find one person - anyone - who can corroborate Ford's accusations. Anyone. As you say - it should be pretty easy - and if they can't find anyone?  What would you have to say then? Honestly - what would you think?

For a bunch of reasons, it will be very difficult to find a first hand witness to allegations of rape.  Witnesses are likely to be the rapists themselves and collaborators.  Nobody wants to step forward and admit they participated in something like that; or even that they knew about it and said nothing for 35 years.

However, as per my previous post, Kavanaugh made plenty of other statements that are provably false.   Lying to congress is a federal crime and he should be removed as a judge because of it.

Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress when he should have been on trial in the Hague for war crimes.  Likewise, Kavanaugh should be impeached for lying to Congress.

Any right wingers who are not raving hypocrites (if such a thing exists) should instantly agree to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Ooh you’re so into insulting people’s intelligence. You must be either a genius super-liberal or an angry virtue signaller.

It's not an insult if it's true.  There is solid research that says people of lower intelligence are significantly more likely to have conservative and racist views (funny how those two always seem to go hand in hand).

Oh, I forgot.  Right wingers don't believe in science either...

:wub:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 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.

Bias? How so?

Kavanaugh needs to follow the constitution, that’s it. If the laws/constitution need to be changed that’s up to Congress and the Senate. His record for making the best possible decision is impeccable. Dems don’t have an argument against that.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, betsy said:

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!

Sad, but apparently true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Don Jonas said:

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.

Wrong. The other cases have far more evidence, and the Dems don’t care about any of them. That’s the only point being made there.

If it becomes apparent that this accusations against BK is likely to be true, and the Republicans don’t care, then you can say gotcha. 

That won’t happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, ReeferMadness said:

It's not an insult if it's true.  There is solid research that says people of lower intelligence are significantly more likely to have conservative and racist views (funny how those two always seem to go hand in hand).

Oh, I forgot.  Right wingers don't believe in science either...

:wub:

If it was true then at least something that you said would have to make sense, but that’s not the case, as evidenced by the fact that you’ve completely given up on defending your silly counter-points. 

You just want to stick to your ad-hominem arguments, and all you have to defend them is a vague reference to science along with some more ad-hominem attacks lol. Your type of debating only works when you’re surrounded by a bunch of useful idiots who chime in with more ad-hominem attacks of their own, like a bunch of crows cawing at a raccoon. 

You've got zilch reefermadness, but I know that you’re not one to let facts get in the way of a good argument. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2018 at 10:56 PM, marcus said:

Which best friend? Where do you get your information?

Here is her best friend fully support her friend and emphasizing that Ford is telling the truth:

 

Most people have more than one friend, don't you know.  According to FOX News another girl friend of Ford by the name of Kaiser or Kayser, not sure of the spelling, said that she never heard of this incident being told to her by her friend Ford. So, who do we believe now? 

I did not watch the whole video but what or where did her friend say about this incident? At what minute or seconds on the video did Ford 's friend say that made Kavanaugh look like he did to her what she said he did? Over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Wrong. The other cases have far more evidence, and the Dems don’t care about any of them. That’s the only point being made there.

If it becomes apparent that this accusations against BK is likely to be true, and the Republicans don’t care, then you can say gotcha. 

That won’t happen. 

Why should it matter?

I am now a successful lawyer. But I have had some shortcomings. Among others:

  1. When I was in 4th grade I stole a $0.12 ice cream bar (in 1967) and got in some trouble;
  2. In the Spring of 1972 I tried to pet a dog who bit me. "Charlie" reported I bit the dog and my parents were asked to remove me from the school. I refused to go and the next year was better;
  3. In the summer of 1972 I had enough of someone picking on me and I threw a scissors at his feet, getting tossed out of camp for that;
  4. In college I got the school to allow me to drop a course without penalty at a point that it would have turned into an "F";
  5. In the last semester of college I dropped a course, relying on AP credits to pass;
  6. In Law School I got Ritalin, complaining of ADHD when I wanted it for a stimulant; and
  7. Had minor scrape with the law about 25 years ago.

More important should any of those things disqualify me from any job? Liberals are said to be in favor of giving second chances?

Are they really?
 


 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2018 at 11:37 PM, Hal 9000 said:

BTW - For all you trying to keep up with the FBI, what they can find and what they'll report - doesn't matter.  While the media is discussing the scope of the investigation, the dem's slight of hand has already happened.  

The dems knew very quickly that they would never prove him guilty of sexual assault, not with Ford's poor evidence.  Kavanaugh was never fighting a sexual assault case, he was fighting a case of excessive drinking.  If they could prove that he drank to excess, the dems could claim that he did it, but didn't remember.  Kavanaugh's only defence is to say as a youngster he never drank to blackout status.  And, that's also why they need Mark Judge (an alcoholic) to testify...to show "guilt by association'.   They asked continually about passing out and he responded with "he never blacked out".  

Ford has done her job, she is passe', I guarantee the dems are scouring for evidence or photos of a passed out Kavanaugh for the inevitable perjury charge.  

It's all just another endless waste of time effort and tax dollars, and the sad part about it all is that thanks to good old Flaky this now will go on for another week of this silly nonsense. The demoncrats and their leftist liberal media supporters have been given another week to try their very best to try and find anything on Kavanaugh in his past. So far it is one for Kavanaugh and zero for the demoncrats. After all of this is over and Kavanaugh is finally appointed to the supreme court the demoncrats should now fall into the minus zero column. 

The demoncrats have now shown themselves to the American people during these proceedings as to what they are all about and as to how far they will go to try and make a mountain out of a mole hill. They are nothing more than a bunch of liars and biggest promoters of bull shit and are willing to go as far as they can to promote a lie no matter what the cost, and to what it will cost the person that they are attacking. If these demoncrats are on some poor bastards hit list then they better get ready and prepare themselves for a leftist liberal media onslaught. Judge Kavanaugh has found that out already.

Unless Flaky decides that he wants to screw Trump and keep Kavanaugh from getting his appointment at the last second Kavanaugh should be on the supreme court bench in a week or so. Let's hope that justice prevails for Kavanaugh and it is the demoncrats that pay a big price at the polls on election day for all of the shenanigans that they have been doing for months against a good and decent man. My opinion.:)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2018 at 12:58 AM, marcus said:

He is lying that he didn't drink excessively. 

What difference would that make in these hearings if Kavanuagh lied about drinking excessively? In what way should the drinking of too much beer in his youth is somehow going to effect his nomination and Kavanaughs appointment to the supreme court in anyway? :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:

However, as per my previous post, Kavanaugh made plenty of other statements that are provably false.   Lying to congress is a federal crime and he should be removed as a judge because of it.

Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress when he should have been on trial in the Hague for war crimes.  Likewise, Kavanaugh should be impeached for lying to Congress.

Any right wingers who are not raving hypocrites (if such a thing exists) should instantly agree to this.

Reefer - I looked back but couldn't find the specifics of what you consider to be "lies" that Kavanaugh made. To avoid being a raving hypocrite could you give me a couple of instances where he lied? I find your claim confusing because as he was being questioned, Kavanaugh himself said if he wasn't telling the truth, he'd be subject to criminal prosecution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, jbg said:

Why should it matter?

I am now a successful lawyer. But I have had some shortcomings. Among others:

  1. When I was in 4th grade I stole a $0.12 ice cream bar (in 1967) and got in some trouble;
  2. In the Spring of 1972 I tried to pet a dog who bit me. "Charlie" reported I bit the dog and my parents were asked to remove me from the school. I refused to go and the next year was better;
  3. In the summer of 1972 I had enough of someone picking on me and I threw a scissors at his feet, getting tossed out of camp for that;
  4. In college I got the school to allow me to drop a course without penalty at a point that it would have turned into an "F";
  5. In the last semester of college I dropped a course, relying on AP credits to pass;
  6. In Law School I got Ritalin, complaining of ADHD when I wanted it for a stimulant; and
  7. Had minor scrape with the law about 25 years ago.

More important should any of those things disqualify me from any job? Liberals are said to be in favor of giving second chances?

Are they really?
 


 

 

Liberals only believe in giving other liberals a second chance. Liberals are well known for being liars and very intolerant of people who do not agree with them. If one crapped his pants when he/she was a baby they will try to make something out of it and will try to use it against their opponent if it is needed to do so to make their opponent look bad. The leftist intolerant liberals are nothing more than but a bunch of crybaby loser snowflakes. They must be reading and believing too much of what communists like Soros and Saul Alinsky write and preaches. No doubt liberals/socialists/communists favorite book is called "Rules For Radicals" written by Saul Alinsky many decades ago. It was a book written on how to create massive communist chaos and mayhem to try to get scumbags like liberal leftist Antifa social justice warriors to demonstrate and then to force their will and way on the the fools who will listen to their lies and bull shit. Liberals are definitely not for real. They are a big joke.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, jbg said:

Why should it matter?

I am now a successful lawyer. But I have had some shortcomings. Among others:

  1. When I was in 4th grade I stole a $0.12 ice cream bar (in 1967) and got in some trouble;
  2. In the Spring of 1972 I tried to pet a dog who bit me. "Charlie" reported I bit the dog and my parents were asked to remove me from the school. I refused to go and the next year was better;
  3. In the summer of 1972 I had enough of someone picking on me and I threw a scissors at his feet, getting tossed out of camp for that;
  4. In college I got the school to allow me to drop a course without penalty at a point that it would have turned into an "F";
  5. In the last semester of college I dropped a course, relying on AP credits to pass;
  6. In Law School I got Ritalin, complaining of ADHD when I wanted it for a stimulant; and
  7. Had minor scrape with the law about 25 years ago.

More important should any of those things disqualify me from any job? Liberals are said to be in favor of giving second chances?

Are they really?
 


 

 

This isn't about fairness or second chances, it's about whether someone should be sitting on a supreme court. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wilber said:

This isn't about fairness or second chances, it's about whether someone should be sitting on a supreme court. Period.

If this were a liberal Kavanaugh up for nomination to the supreme court and had been accused of something like what Kavanuagh is being accused of I can bet you dollars to donuts that the demoncrats would want to give him a second chance. Apparently they have no problem with Senator Booker who according to FOX News was involved in some kind of a sexual assault on some woman but the demoncrats seem to have no problem with him being a senator and this guy Booker is being allowed to question and attack Kavanaugh? What a joke. Second chances will only work for anyone who is a liberal. There will be no breaks for conservatives though. Bloody liberals they can be such hypocrites and liars. Period. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, taxme said:

If this were a liberal Kavanaugh up for nomination to the supreme court and had been accused of something like what Kavanuagh is being accused of I can bet you dollars to donuts that the demoncrats would want to give him a second chance. Apparently they have no problem with Senator Booker who according to FOX News was involved in some kind of a sexual assault on some woman but the demoncrats seem to have no problem with him being a senator and this guy Booker is being allowed to question and attack Kavanaugh? What a joke. Second chances will only work for anyone who is a liberal. There will be no breaks for conservatives though. Bloody liberals they can be such hypocrites and liars. Period. :D

This isn't about fairness or second chances, its about whether someone should be sitting on a supreme court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The best course Judge Kavanuagh could do is to announce that, he is putting his family first and to protect them, he is withdrawing.

I beg to disagree.

  If he was to withdraw, he should've done it before the FBI investigation was ordered.   If he withdraws now, of course we know how the Dems and the anti-Trumps are going to spin that.  They'll say the FBI probe had scared him off - because he has something to hide.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Wilber said:

This isn't about fairness or second chances, its about whether someone should be sitting on a supreme court. 

This is about fairness!  Everything  has to have fairness!  Unless of course,  you want a corrupt government?

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Wilber said:

No it isn't, no one has a right to sit on a supreme court. It's about fitness not fairness. Unless you want a corrupt court. 

He is fit to sit in the Supreme Court.  The American Bar Association had given him a high rating just a month ago.  Unfortunately, there is this accusation that puts a question to his fitness as a Supreme Court judge.  In a democracy, there is what we call due process.  It is defined by google as, 

 fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.

 

And, it is his human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.


 

Quote

 

The presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.

In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.

Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact.

 

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

 

Ford  has not presented any evidence to support her allegation.   In fact, all the people she identified and named as attendees of that particular party, had all said they have no recollection of being in that party she described.   That includes her life-long friend (Leland Keyser), who soundly refuted Ford's claim that Keyser attended that party.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 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.

Wrong, Wilber.

He's been a Federal Judge for `12 years and there was no complaint for his bias or temperament!   here, you must've missed this:

 

 

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/

 

 

 

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, betsy said:

Wrong, Wilber.

He's been a Federal Judge for `12 years and there was no complaint for his bias or temperament!   here, you must've missed this:

 

 

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

 

 

 

That was then.

ABA calls for Kavanaugh investigation

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jbg said:

Why should it matter?

I am now a successful lawyer. But I have had some shortcomings. Among others:

  1. When I was in 4th grade I stole a $0.12 ice cream bar (in 1967) and got in some trouble;
  2. In the Spring of 1972 I tried to pet a dog who bit me. "Charlie" reported I bit the dog and my parents were asked to remove me from the school. I refused to go and the next year was better;
  3. In the summer of 1972 I had enough of someone picking on me and I threw a scissors at his feet, getting tossed out of camp for that;
  4. In college I got the school to allow me to drop a course without penalty at a point that it would have turned into an "F";
  5. In the last semester of college I dropped a course, relying on AP credits to pass;
  6. In Law School I got Ritalin, complaining of ADHD when I wanted it for a stimulant; and
  7. Had minor scrape with the law about 25 years ago.

More important should any of those things disqualify me from any job? Liberals are said to be in favor of giving second chances?

Are they really?
 


 

 

I agree with you re: the hypocrisy of the liberal crowd, and that we can't stop kids from becoming productive adults because of some run-of-the-mill juvenile mistakes, but rape isn't one of them lol. It's a serious thing to be a lawyer, but entirely another to sit on the highest bench in the land, establishing legal precedents that take generations to overturn.

The Supreme Court of the United States doesn't have room for a sex offender in my opinion, respect for the law is a cornerstone of any advanced society. 

Disrespect for the law is already bad enough in the States right now, for various reasons: 1) the fact that Hillary Clinton has gotten away with disregarding subpoenas, 2) the last administration openly advocated disrespect of police while it supported rioting, looting & arson, and 3) high-ranking members of the FBI are being fired and demoted for crimes and because of problems related to their general lack of integrity. 

I think the States would become a zoo if they allowed Kavanaugh to be a SCJ if it turns out that there's reliable evidence that he did the things that he is accused of.

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...