Jump to content

Ford-Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Allegation


WestCanMan

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

The problem with Conservative women who excuse men who commit sexual assault.    Kowtowing to men will not save these female misogynists or their daughters.  

Its not surprising that these female misogynists are such ardent supporters of Trump, or that they happily dismiss Ford's experience while excusing and protecting Kavanaugh; sucking up to men has become their raison d'etre.

 

Why is it conservative women excusing men who commit sexual assault?  I think if you're honest, you'll see that women of all political leanings do that.  I'm not going to get into Ellison, Clinton, Kennedy, Jackson etc.,  but c'mon, supporting sex offenders is not exclusive to any one group of women.  Also, who exactly are you referring to?  If there was a dime's worth, or an ounce of evidence against Kavanaugh, he'd be done, instead he'll be a supreme court judge.

Why don't you ever wonder about feminist women supporting women in obvious false allegations.  That seems to be more pervasive and dangerous than anything else.

Remember when liberals would say things like "better to free 10 men than wrongly convict one"?  Now it's literally, "If a few innocent men go down, that's a price we'll accept".  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

I understand that Conservative misogynistic men cannot handle even the idea that some women do not submit to men and are not afraid to speak out.   Thanks for identifying yourself.

You know as well as I do that she covered for Bill for 20 years, and she publicly blasted his accusers, so stop chucking around childish insults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

As long as conservatives aren't claiming they're better than Liberals.

Except they do, every single day.  And when their hypocrisy is pointed out to them, they cling eagerly to decades old stuff, as if that somehow makes what they are doing acceptable.  If it was not acceptable then, it sure as fvck isn't acceptable now just because conservatives are doing it. 

By the way, if Democrats have no honor, are liars, are corrupr and hypocrites, then what are Republucans who double and triple down on all of that by electing and supporting a corrupt, racist, misogynistic lying piece of shvt like Trump?  

 

Is the Keith Ellison accusation decades old? Or is it roughly 1 month old. His election hasn't even come up yet. There's far more evidence against him being a woman-beater than there is about Kavanaugh being a rapist, but Democrats gave him the nomination for Attorney General anyways. How's that for hypocrisy?

Look at every comment Schiff ever made re: Russian collusion. He wasn't just guessing and getting it 100% wrong every time, he was lying. Do any Democrats ever say "dial it down"? Look at the stupid comments by the Hawaiian Senator Hirono or whatever - "All accusers have to be believed!" But they don't believe anyone who was raped by Bill or beaten up by Ellison. 

Where's your proof that Trump is racist? I've never seen an accuser provide any evidence of that yet.

Trump had sex with grown women who were in a position to do whatever they wanted, they were independently well-off. They weren't employees like Bill's actual rape victims were. He didn't beat them up like Ellison did. So he got NDAs signed, he cheated on his wife. It's a morality issue, not criminality. But how many men do you know that wouldn't sleep with either of those two women, given the chance? 

Can you name a material fact that Trump lied about as President?

Once again, your post is full of "inaccuracies" and baseless accusations. You call Republicans liars and hypocrites for standing behind people who haven't committed crimes and you stand behind Democrats who are serial liars and criminals. Then you insult everyone else lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

 

Why don't you ever wonder about feminist women supporting women in obvious false allegations.  That seems to be more pervasive and dangerous than anything else.

Remember when liberals would say things like "better to free 10 men than wrongly convict one"?  Now it's literally, "If a few innocent men go down, that's a price we'll accept".  

Good point.

People who really want to lower the boom on Kavanaugh based on such a seemingly bogus case are doing a disservice to women who have serious allegations and want to come forward. The Dems are pushing this like it's a big thing and it's just Russian Collusion ver 2.0. It's a fine example of making the accused look like the actual victim, and that's not good for female accusers.

Even the fact that Dr Ford wanted to stay anonymous, and then had her story leaked is a really scary thing for a woman. If a high-ranking Democrat Senator will leak your story against your wishes then what will an average, every day District Attorney or Crown Prosecutor do if you're just talking to them about evidence and still thinking about whether or not to proceed with charges? 

A lot of women have good reason to really fear their attacker. They might want to have their evidence heard and then get an opinion on whether or not some brutal rapist will actually get locked up. If they find out it's 50/50, or 40/60 they might want to back down, because what woman wants to piss a guy off by charging him with a felony just to walk out the courthouse door at the exact same time as her freshly-acquitted attacker? To be honest, once a person is found innocent they last thing they probably don't want to do is rock the boat, but it would still cause a woman a lot of sleepless nights knowing that he's free, he's violent, and now he has a serious vendetta.

They might never even report their crime if they're worried that it's going to be leaked. Everyone should have the same goal in mind, and that's every actual victim having the courage to come forward and have their evidence presented resulting in a conviction, and every falsely accused defendant get acquitted. Going along party lines, or by gender, is repulsive.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democrats have overplayed their hand, giving political coverage to any wavering senators by insisting on a FBI investigation of the allegations, which found no corroboration of Ford's committee testimony.   In retrospect, the Democrats may have had a better chance of blocking the confirmation with a full Senate vote at the peak of the controversy last week.

As for the gender politics, Kavanaugh displayed anger and emotion, the very same things that feminists champion when wronged.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Summary here. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judiciary-committee-releases-executive-summary-of-supplemental-fbi-report-on-kavanaugh

Saw interview last night with 2 ex fbi head honchos who agreed the investigation was well done etc. One said actually it would've been a good thing to interview ford as she has never been cross examined.  It's not court but an opportunity to interview her might bring out more information 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Summary here. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judiciary-committee-releases-executive-summary-of-supplemental-fbi-report-on-kavanaugh

Saw interview last night with 2 ex fbi head honchos who agreed the investigation was well done etc. One said actually it would've been a good thing to interview ford as she has never been cross examined.  It's not court but an opportunity to interview her might bring out more information 

Did it ring any bells that they couldn't possibly know whether or not the investigation was well done, being ex-honchos and all?

They refused to talk to dozens of witnesses who saw Kavanaugh's binges firsthand in the 1980s. They refused to talk to Kavanaugh or Ford. There is one copy of the report. It is 1000 pages. There are 100 senators. 

It's not an investigation. It's a strategy to provide political cover.

All in all, it's was most amazing to see people say, without any evidence at all, that she's a liar and guilty of perjury and then, in the same breath, whine about how someone should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a job interview. The cognitive dissonance would be incredible if they had to reconcile those two ideas. But the partisan nutjobs never seem to concern themselves with their own hypocrisy. I don't think they think it through enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing which gets me about this Kavanaugh business is not he said/she said, which without evidence no one can really know for sure. It's the way Republicans and their Canadian lackeys here have dedicated their entire being to pushing this flawed candidate onto the supreme court no matter what it takes and no matter what damage it does to them or the country. I honestly believe that if the US Republican senators found absolute proof Kavanaugh was a serial killer and a spy for Russia they'd hide the evidence to push the nomination through. Because it's not about whether he's any good it's about winning at any cost. And winning is seen as winning TODAY, no matter how much that harms you and your brand. Desperately fighting to win an unimportant battle which will cost you the war is brainless, but that doesn't seem to occur to them.

They could easily pull this nomination - and should have - and substitute another conservative on the list. One without a shady past. One who isn't going to scream and yell and be openly, nakedly partisan and burst into tears in front of the committee. It would have been less divisive, and less damaging to the Republican brand, and they still would have gotten their conservative nomination. But no. "Never give an inch" has been the party motto since the Tea Party took it over.

The Republicans have already so damaged their brand with their shady tactics, abandonment of both social and fiscal conservatism, and focusing so much effort on helping their donors at the expense of the American people that it's a foregone conclusion they'll get slaughtered in 2020. And what's unfortunately likely to happen is the backlash is likely to to put someone into the oval office who will make Obama look like a member of the Tea Party by comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scribblet said:

Saw interview last night with 2 ex fbi head honchos who agreed the investigation was well done etc. 

So they haven't seen the report and don't know what terms the FBI were ordered to conduct it under but they know - somehow - that it was well done.
I don't know where FOX finds these people, people willing to say whatever FOX tells them to. I guess the fistful of cash they get paid helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Argus said:

So they haven't seen the report and don't know what terms the FBI were ordered to conduct it under but they know - somehow - that it was well done.
I don't know where FOX finds these people, people willing to say whatever FOX tells them to. I guess the fistful of cash they get paid helps.

I was paraphrasing but it's clear that the report was well done, it  was 100s of single spaced pages.

Notice that Senators back pedaled on Ford instead, concentrating on other Kavanaujgh positions such as gun control.. There must have been some damning info in that FBI report.

The thing is of course, why do the Dems.  need an investigation when they already knew they were going to vote no, even before they had a name.   Nothing said or done would induce them to vote yes anyway.  The copy of the report BTW  is a Senate rule, not a new Republican plot, a rule put in place under Obama admin. 

The hearing last week was Kafkaesque, a deliberate planned attempt to destroy a good man without a shred of evidence, now confirmed with the FBI report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Don Jonas said:

Did it ring any bells that they couldn't possibly know whether or not the investigation was well done, being ex-honchos and all?

They refused to talk to dozens of witnesses who saw Kavanaugh's binges firsthand in the 1980s. They refused to talk to Kavanaugh or Ford. There is one copy of the report. It is 1000 pages. There are 100 senators. 

It's not an investigation. It's a strategy to provide political cover.

All in all, it's was most amazing to see people say, without any evidence at all, that she's a liar and guilty of perjury and then, in the same breath, whine about how someone should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a job interview. The cognitive dissonance would be incredible if they had to reconcile those two ideas. But the partisan nutjobs never seem to concern themselves with their own hypocrisy. I don't think they think it through enough. 

The FBI investigation isn't interested in whether or not Kavanaugh understated his college drinking at the confirmation hearings Don Jonas. How much he drank on occasion in college is neither here nor there regarding the allegation of attempted rape when he was in high school. That's just basic common sense. (And fyi if he got really drunk a few times over the course of 7 or so years of college that's not a big deal).

The investigation is into whether or not there is a shred of proof that he attempted to rape her.

This is a he said, she said until the FBI finds evidence or someone to corroborate her story. She named witnesses. They didn't corroborate her story. Key people in her life for decades never corroborated this story.

Details that she gave about her PTSD were proven to be false (easy enough to prove that se lived in a 500 sq ft apartment with one door, in contradiction to her testimony that she couldn't go into a place like that). She said she had a fear of flying but she flies all the time. Is she a serial liar? These aren't little white lies either, they are key details regarding a serious accusation with massive repercussions. The fact that she's telling big lies is extremely damaging to her he said she said case. How strong do you honestly think this case is based on the main elements that the FBI has to investigate?

Did you expect the FBI to perform a miracle? Were they supposed to somehow find some actual evidence without a clue as to where or when they should even look? Her story was ultra-weak to begin with and all of her witnesses claim to not be witnesses. And the burden of proof actually lies with the accuser. Where's the proof of this Don Jonas? Aside from her sob story and proven lies?

 

Edited by WestCanMan
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, scribblet said:

I was paraphrasing but it's clear that the report was well done, it  was 100s of single spaced pages.

Notice that Senators back pedaled on Ford instead, concentrating on other Kavanaujgh positions such as gun control.. There must have been some damning info in that FBI report.

The thing is of course, why do the Dems.  need an investigation when they already knew they were going to vote no, even before they had a name.   Nothing said or done would induce them to vote yes anyway.  The copy of the report BTW  is a Senate rule, not a new Republican plot, a rule put in place under Obama admin. 

The hearing last week was Kafkaesque, a deliberate planned attempt to destroy a good man without a shred of evidence, now confirmed with the FBI report.

It's obviously a well done report because it"s full of words, and it obviously says there was a conspiracy against Kavanaugh because... you really want it to?

Why are you saying Ford is guilty of perjury with no evidence, and instead pretending the report you haven't read confirms this? Don't you believe in innocent until proven guilty? How come that's only important for rapey Republicans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Don Jonas said:

It's obviously a well done report because it"s full of words, and it obviously says there was a conspiracy against Kavanaugh because... you really want it to?

Why are you saying Ford is guilty of perjury with no evidence, and instead pretending the report you haven't read confirms this? Don't you believe in innocent until proven guilty? How come that's only important for rapey Republicans?

What good reason do you have for assuming that it's a bad report? 

There is ample evidence that Ford wasn't afraid of flying, and she should have known that they offered to come to her for her testimony (everyone else in NA knew, and her lawyers certainly did and it was their JOB to tell her), she wasnt claustrophobic, she didn't need to always be in a building with two doors, and as a psychiatrist she definitely would have known more about polygraphs than she let on.

All of her lies are about key points in her testimony. Did she even have PTSD? Nope. You say Kavanaugh drank more than he let on when he was in college. If he's exaggerating about a detail that's barely related (lots of people got wasted all the time and never raped anybody) it's not in the same category. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

There is ample evidence that Ford wasn't afraid of flying, 

People do things that scare them all the time.  I go on tall things, even though I get vertigo on heights.  I speak in front of people, even though it scares me.  If people never did anything that scared them, we would have a lot fewer soldiers actually fighting.  Plenty of people are "white knuckle" flyers, but still fly regularly for work. 

Its ridiculously simplistic to think someone who was afraid of flying would never fly.  But then, conservatives seem to think being ridiculously simplistic makes them clever.  Or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

What good reason do you have for assuming that it's a bad report? 

There is ample evidence that Ford wasn't afraid of flying, and she should have known that they offered to come to her for her testimony (everyone else in NA knew, and her lawyers certainly did and it was their JOB to tell her), she wasnt claustrophobic, she didn't need to always be in a building with two doors, and as a psychiatrist she definitely would have known more about polygraphs than she let on.

All of her lies are about key points in her testimony. Did she even have PTSD? Nope. You say Kavanaugh drank more than he let on when he was in college. If he's exaggerating about a detail that's barely related (lots of people got wasted all the time and never raped anybody) it's not in the same category.

Which is bullshit but never mind. Kavanaugh is unworthy because of his own behaviour, not hers. Retired Justice Stevens said as much the other day. And so did 100,000 churches.

Justice Stevens said he came to the conclusion reluctantly, changing his mind about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination after the second round of the judge’s confirmation hearings last week. Judge Kavanaugh’s statements at those hearings, Justice Stevens said, revealed prejudices that would make it impossible for him to do the court’s work, a point he said had been made by prominent commentators.

“They suggest that he has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities,” Justice Stevens said in remarks to retirees in Boca Raton, Fla. “And I think there is merit in that criticism and that the senators should really pay attention to it.”

“For the good of the court,” he said, “it’s not healthy to get a new justice that can only do a part-time job.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/us/politics/john-paul-stevens-brett-kavanaugh.html

The nation’s largest coalition of Christian churches on Wednesday called for the withdrawal of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for the Supreme Court.
"Judge Kavanaugh exhibited extreme partisan bias and disrespect towards certain members of the committee and thereby demonstrated that he possesses neither the temperament nor the character essential for a member of the highest court in our nation,” the statement read.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/409775-national-council-of-churches-calls-for-kavanaughs-nomination-to

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, dialamah said:

People do things that scare them all the time.  I go on tall things, even though I get vertigo on heights.  I speak in front of people, even though it scares me.  If people never did anything that scared them, we would have a lot fewer soldiers actually fighting.  Plenty of people are "white knuckle" flyers, but still fly regularly for work. 

Its ridiculously simplistic to think someone who was afraid of flying would never fly.  But then, conservatives seem to think being ridiculously simplistic makes them clever.  Or something.

She tried to use it as a reason why she wouldn't get on a flight to Washington. Apparently it comes and goes. BS.

And try to make a post with childish insults for once. It's incredibly pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Argus said:

Which is bullshit but never mind. Kavanaugh is unworthy because of his own behaviour, not hers. Retired Justice Stevens said as much the other day. And so did 100,000 churches.

Justice Stevens said he came to the conclusion reluctantly, changing his mind about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination after the second round of the judge’s confirmation hearings last week. Judge Kavanaugh’s statements at those hearings, Justice Stevens said, revealed prejudices that would make it impossible for him to do the court’s work, a point he said had been made by prominent commentators.

“They suggest that he has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities,” Justice Stevens said in remarks to retirees in Boca Raton, Fla. “And I think there is merit in that criticism and that the senators should really pay attention to it.”

“For the good of the court,” he said, “it’s not healthy to get a new justice that can only do a part-time job.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/us/politics/john-paul-stevens-brett-kavanaugh.html

The nation’s largest coalition of Christian churches on Wednesday called for the withdrawal of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for the Supreme Court.
"Judge Kavanaugh exhibited extreme partisan bias and disrespect towards certain members of the committee and thereby demonstrated that he possesses neither the temperament nor the character essential for a member of the highest court in our nation,” the statement read.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/409775-national-council-of-churches-calls-for-kavanaughs-nomination-to

 

 

Posers. Yay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take cover -  Senator Collins who is considered a moderate who sometimes votes with the Democrats,  is voting yes.. and one Democrat will vote yes.     I actually watched her speech which went on and on, but my goodness, I was impressed (favourably) she went over many of his cases and how he ruled on them showing that he was  fair and impartial - and showed that he was more than likely to uphold Roe v Wade; also talking about due process. 

Sen. Collins took a stand today for America literally in the face mobs outside her office and threats to her and her office staff.   She said no to mob rule and intimidation and halted an aggressive unethical character attack the likes of which we don't want to see again.

As far as churches go, we have separation of Church and State, so they have no say.    If you listened to her speech with an open mind, it would be hard to vote no.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Take cover -  Senator Collins who is considered a moderate who sometimes votes with the Democrats,  is voting yes.. and one Democrat will vote yes.     I actually watched her speech which went on and on, but my goodness, I was impressed (favourably) she went over many of his cases and how he ruled on them showing that he was  fair and impartial - and showed that he was more than likely to uphold Roe v Wade; also talking about due process.

 

Indeed...Judge Kavanaugh was previously confirmed in 2006 by the U.S. Senate and all of the sudden he is no longer qualified ?

Sen. Collins accurately described the partisan context and framework that has defined justice confirmation hearings for a generation.

Even Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed 52-48...by a Democrat controlled Senate !

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, scribblet said:

she went over many of his cases and how he ruled on them showing that he was  fair and impartial - and showed that he was more than likely to uphold Roe v Wade;

Except that Kavanaugh dodged the question when asked directly if he would work to overturn Roe v. Wade.

We also know that Trump flat out said he would be stocking the SC with Justices who would overturn it.

It's an important enough issue that I think we need more than some vague "more than likely he'll uphold it".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my wording, she a long articulate reasoned speech detailing many of his cases, you would have to listen for yourself.    I doubt that he could answer on how he could rule because he has to have a case before him that has worked it's way up to the court.   

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...