Jump to content

Ford-Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Allegation


WestCanMan

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

Read, lady, read! Please! The information is readily available if you look for it. Don't speak on the basis of ignorance and then demand that others prove their claims.

Kavanaugh's position, supported by many of those alleged to have been present during the period that Dr. Ford's complaint covers, has been widely reported both inside the U.S. and around the world. Look at he article below in a UK outlet, which succinctly states "Judge Brett Kavanaugh said he does not recall having any memorable interactions with Christine Blasey Ford, a 51-year-old research psychologist and professor who accused him of sexually assaulting her in the 1980s."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/kavanaugh-doesnt-remember-christine-ford-supreme-court-2018-9

No.  That doesn't say he has "little accurate recollection."   He's stating what is a fact (to him).

 

I'm responding to your statement.  You said:

 

Quote

Had he reacted in a more empathetic fashion, acknowledging that given the passage of almost four decades he has little accurate recollection of the events in question

 

How do you know his statement to the press, that  "he does not recall having any memorable interactions with Christine Blasey,"  isn't accurate?

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, scribblet said:

So, an fbi investigation. ..An interesting point here.

If the FBI clears Kavanaugh after a week or at least cannot corroborate stories, and Democrat Senators still vote no, they will appear hyper partisan and anti-due process right before the midterms.  Is it possible this is a major trap for Democrats.  

 

Not so much for the House, where local politics means more than in the Senate.   

Ford's attorney has already started playing games with timeline and scope.

The Democrats have no power, except to keep trying to force a delay....they really don't want a vote at all, preferring that Kavanaugh withdraw his nomination.

Continued fun and games will give any GOP holdouts sufficient cover to proceed in support of their caucus.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, betsy said:

No.  That doesn't say he has "little accurate recollection."   He's stating what is a fact (to him).

 

I'm responding to your statement.  You said:

 

 

How do you know his statement to the press, that  "he does not recall having any memorable interactions with Christine Blasey,"  isn't accurate?

It's true that he could have been black-out drunk. That would be consistent with his friends' characterization of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, scribblet said:

So, an fbi investigation. ..An interesting point here.

If the FBI clears Kavanaugh after a week or at least cannot corroborate stories, and Democrat Senators still vote no, they will appear hyper partisan and anti-due process right before the midterms.  Is it possible this is a major trap for Democrats.  

That's how it looks like.   Now, the Dems can't say they didn't get what they asked for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, scribblet said:

So, an fbi investigation. ..An interesting point here.

If the FBI clears Kavanaugh after a week or at least cannot corroborate stories, and Democrat Senators still vote no, they will appear hyper partisan and anti-due process right before the midterms.  Is it possible this is a major trap for Democrats.  

I assume you believe the GOP was hyper-partisan and anti due process in how they dealt with Garland?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Not so much for the House, where local politics means more than in the Senate.   

Ford's attorney has already started playing games with timeline and scope.

The Democrats have no power, except to keep trying to force a delay....they really don't want a vote at all, preferring that Kavanaugh withdraw his nomination.

Continued fun and games will give any GOP holdouts sufficient cover to proceed in support of their caucus.

Thanks.. haven't heard that yet about the attorneys, where is it reported...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Boges said:

Well then his act today would have been pointless then. He's a Lame-Duck Senator. Has nothing to lose. 

I find it sad and telling that Senators who are not running are expected to be more moral, and it's just accepted.  Unbelievable corruption in the system today... and people just accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I find it sad and telling that Senators who are not running are expected to be more moral, and it's just accepted.  Unbelievable corruption in the system today... and people just accept it.

It’s actually the opposite.  A senator up for re-election is more apt to act in a way that represents their constituents.  Regardless, I’m not sure helping continue a disgusting farce and smear of a persons character is so-called moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Thanks..they have no say... if they are doing pro Bono why does she need a haf million go fund me

Pretty  sure Democrats will find a one week FBI investigation, especially if nothing is found, insufficient and new allegations suddenly surface .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Thanks..they have no say... if they are doing pro Bono why does she need a haf million go fund me

Pretty  sure Democrats will find a one week FBI investigation, especially if nothing is found, insufficient and new allegations suddenly surface .

I think the FBI will now be calling the shots. If  they think something needs further investigation, it would be suicidal for the GOP to say no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FBI will not be conducting a criminal investigation...just a supplemental background check with principal witnesses in the matter.   The FBI is in no position to get cute with political partisanship given what has transpired between Trump and (now fired) agents.

Background checks involve interviews and documentation...not findings of guilt or innocence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kavanaugh is credible only to blind partisans and blithering idiots.

Much of what he said is provably untrue (he was of legal drinking age) , strains credibility (tens of thousands of dollars worth of credit card debt that was suddenly paid off was due to baseball tickets for friends) or consisted of statements that any 17 year old would instantly recognize as a blatant lie you tell your parents to stay out of trouble (boofing=farting, devil's triangle is a drinking game, yearbook reference to Renate was a gesture of respect).  There is zero reason to believe him, over his accusers, regardless of how long ago it was or whatever detail may have faded due to the years.

The mere fact that his handlers didn't even bother to come up with believable lies shows how the GOP holds its followers in utter contempt, a contempt that is clearly well deserved.  The mere fact that this putz is a judge, much less nominated for the supreme court is proof of how far the US has sunk into moral decrepitude.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Truth Detector said:

The constituents are the people that vote.

That's such an adorable notion.

Lawmakers More Likely To Meet With Campaign Donors Than Constituents, New Study Finds https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/campaign-donations-access_n_4941357
Study: Politicians Vote Against the Will of Their Constituents 35 Percent of the Time https://promarket.org/study-politicians-vote-will-constituents-35-percent-time/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, taxme said:

Even her best friend pretty much said that she is not telling the truth here.

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:

 

Edited by marcus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I think by "best friend", the reference is to this Leland Keyser person that was supposedly at the alleged gathering where the assault was claimed to have happened.  Ms. Keyser has stated that she didn't know Kavanaugh and has never been at any gathering with him. 

Edited by Hal 9000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 1
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...