New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
BrooklynBaby said:
Ford remembers everything in great detail. Well, except for the things that are necessary to do an investigation to find the truth and/or prove she is lying. Those she doesn't remember at all. Very murky -- early 80s at unknown location. This is no accident. Feinstein won't even supply the unredacted letter to Grassley, the ONLY EVIDENCE they have, other that sworn statements from everyone mentioned, under felony peril, that nothing like she describes ever happened. It's a joke, and nothing more than a delaying tactic. Ford isn't going to testify, although she certainly might agree to do so and then not show up or beg for another delay. She isn't acting at all like someone who wants to get the truth out, she's acting like someone who knows her story won't stand up under the slightest bit of scrutiny. Actually, she's negotiating terms like SHE is the bad guy, and I'll bet she is.
Click to expand...

And why victims remember some details and not others is explained by no less than the daughter of a president:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e8-8792-78719177250f_story.html?noredirect=on
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Ford remembers everything in great detail. Well, except for the things that are necessary to do an investigation to find the truth and/or prove she is lying. Those she doesn't remember at all. Very murky -- early 80s at unknown location. This is no accident. Feinstein won't even supply the unredacted letter to Grassley, the ONLY EVIDENCE they have, other that sworn statements from everyone mentioned, under felony peril, that nothing like she describes ever happened. It's a joke, and nothing more than a delaying tactic. Ford isn't going to testify, although she certainly might agree to do so and then not show up or beg for another delay. She isn't acting at all like someone who wants to get the truth out, she's acting like someone who knows her story won't stand up under the slightest bit of scrutiny. Actually, she's negotiating terms like SHE is the bad guy, and I'll bet she is.
Click to expand...

You fault her for remembering the traumatic incident but not the address of the house which had no importance or the exact year? When I was assaulted decades ago, I remember the incident very well, but I don't remember my exact age or the year...I just remember I was somewhere in my early 20's...old enough to drink but definitely under 25. I remember it was in a parking lot outside a club. I can't remember the name of the club and can only give its location in a general area. I guess, according to you, the assault never happened because, about 40 years later, I can't remember those details?

The fact Ford discussed the assault with her therapist (and whose notes prove it) well before Kavanaugh was even considered for the SC was just part of Ford's nefarious plan, heh?
 
Bob001 said:
And why victims remember some details and not others is explained by no less than the daughter of a president:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e8-8792-78719177250f_story.html?noredirect=on
Click to expand...

Well, most people would have some details wrong after 36 years. But she could have gone to the police and she didn't. Not then, not a few years later, not ever. I quite simply don't believe that she remembers all of the details except those that would allow an investigation. There is no way to prove she is lying, but that is at the expense of not being able to bring any kind of case against Kavanaugh. Now, if all she's looking for now is a delay, then it works well. But, this letter was initially concocted so she could torpedo Kavanaugh anonymously. She wasn't planning on having to put herself in felony jeopardy by bringing this nonsense to the Senate Judiciary Committee in person. I don't expect to ever see her there.
 
"Remember that this president is an unindicted co-conspirator in a felony criminal investigation and should not have the ability to appoint someone to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh's hearing should be delayed until the investigation is resolved."
-- Kamala Harris (Sept 1, 2018)

"I objected to moving forward with the Kavanaugh hearing because this process has not been transparent or fair. These hearings should be delayed now."
-- Kamala Harris (Sept 4, 2018)

"Christine Blasey Ford courageously stepped forward to tell her story — it is a credible and serious allegation. A vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination must be delayed until there is a thorough investigation."
-- Kamala Harris (Sept 16, 2018)
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Well, most people would have some details wrong after 36 years. But she could have gone to the police and she didn't. Not then, not a few years later, not ever. I quite simply don't believe that she remembers all of the details except those that would allow an investigation. There is no way to prove she is lying, but that is at the expense of not being able to bring any kind of case against Kavanaugh. Now, if all she's looking for now is a delay, then it works well. But, this letter was initially concocted so she could torpedo Kavanaugh anonymously. She wasn't planning on having to put herself in felony jeopardy by bringing this nonsense to the Senate Judiciary Committee in person. I don't expect to ever see her there.
Click to expand...

If this were an altar boy who had accused a priest of molestation that happened 36 years ago and was hazy about specific times and dates and had told a therapist about it years ago (and had not gone to the police nor even told his parents) would you be just as skeptical? No, you wouldn't.

Kavanaugh is not on trial. He's applying for a job. There are credible accusations against him that were discussed with a therapist back in 2012. Why is it so hard for the GOP to distance themselves from these creeps? Trump, Moore, and now Kavanaugh. It's gotten so bad if the accused is a GOP man, there's almost a presumption of guilt.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
If this were an altar boy who had accused a priest of molestation that happened 36 years ago and was hazy about specific times and dates and had told a therapist about it years ago (and had not gone to the police nor even told his parents) would you be just as skeptical? No, you wouldn't.

Kavanaugh is not on trial. He's applying for a job. There are credible accusations against him that were discussed with a therapist back in 2012. Why is it so hard for the GOP to distance themselves from creeps? Trump, Moore, and now Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...

None of what you said is true as far as I'm concerned. I simply go by the evidence.

Ford said she is going to testify again, so we're back to square one, when her lawyer said she was ready to testify coming out of the gate. There will need to be arrangements made, of course.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Well, most people would have some details wrong after 36 years. But she could have gone to the police and she didn't. Not then, not a few years later, not ever. I quite simply don't believe that she remembers all of the details except those that would allow an investigation. There is no way to prove she is lying, but that is at the expense of not being able to bring any kind of case against Kavanaugh. Now, if all she's looking for now is a delay, then it works well. But, this letter was initially concocted so she could torpedo Kavanaugh anonymously. She wasn't planning on having to put herself in felony jeopardy by bringing this nonsense to the Senate Judiciary Committee in person. I don't expect to ever see her there.
Click to expand...

Good grief. The vast majority of sexual assaults are not reported.

Rape is the most under-reported crime; 63% of
sexual assaults are not reported to police (o).
Click to expand...
://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf

She was not raped and received no injuries. She was 17 and had been drinking. You think she's going to tell her parents, much less the police? Get real. I was in my early 20's and I didn't go to the police or tell my parents and I wasn't doing anything I thought I could get in trouble for.

She never wanted to bring a case against Kavanaugh. That's why she sent it anonymously and asked for Feinstein to keep it that way. She never planned on it being revealed. Your theory has more holes than Swiss cheese.
 
Fudbucker said:
Kavanaugh is not on trial. He's applying for a job. There are credible accusations against him that were discussed with a therapist back in 2012. Why is it so hard for the GOP to distance themselves from creeps? Trump, Moore, and now Kavanaugh. It's gotten so bad if the accused is a GOP man, there's almost a presumption of guilt.
Click to expand...

Three people have specifically denied it, and what she told the therapist three decades later is inconsistent with her story now.

You have already deemed the accusations credible and Kavanaugh a creep. Of course he is not on trial, Leftist have already convicted him.
 
ST. PAUL, Minn. — Minnesota state Rep. Jim Knoblach abruptly ended his re-election campaign Friday amid allegations of inappropriate touching from his adult daughter.

Knoblach's 23-year-old daughter, Laura, told MPR that he inappropriately touched her for most of her life, with her first memories starting when she was 9 years old and continuing until she was 21. She said the activity included kissing, licking and biting her ears. She said she confided in close friends, family and authority figures at her school and church about his actions for more than a decade.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...-campaign-amid-daughter-s-allegations-n912201

It's almost like there's a pattern or something.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
None of what you said is true as far as I'm concerned. I simply go by the evidence.

Ford said she is going to testify again, so we're back to square one, when her lawyer said she was ready to testify coming out of the gate. There will need to be arrangements made, of course.
Click to expand...

What specifically said by Fudbucker is untrue?
You are not going by the evidence, you are going by a lot of biased assumptions on your part about Ford's motives, what she 'thinks', and how memory works.
 
Fudbucker said:
ST. PAUL, Minn. — Minnesota state Rep. Jim Knoblach abruptly ended his re-election campaign Friday amid allegations of inappropriate touching from his adult daughter.

Knoblach's 23-year-old daughter, Laura, told MPR that he inappropriately touched her for most of her life, with her first memories starting when she was 9 years old and continuing until she was 21. She said the activity included kissing, licking and biting her ears. She said she confided in close friends, family and authority figures at her school and church about his actions for more than a decade.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...-campaign-amid-daughter-s-allegations-n912201

It's almost like there's a pattern or something.
Click to expand...

Amen, this guy, Franken, Ellison, what the **** is up with Minnesota?
 
Stacyhs said:
Good grief. The vast majority of sexual assaults are not reported.


://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf

She was not raped and received no injuries. She was 17 and had been drinking. You think she's going to tell her parents, much less the police? Get real. I was in my early 20's and I didn't go to the police or tell my parents and I wasn't doing anything I thought I could get in trouble for.

She never wanted to bring a case against Kavanaugh. That's why she sent it anonymously and asked for Feinstein to keep it that way. She never planned on it being revealed. Your theory has more holes than Swiss cheese.
Click to expand...

Sure, I understand her not telling her parents, assuming this actually happened. I understand if she went to the police she would have to make a sworn statement, even today. I don't believe she doesn't know the location of the party, though, or how she got there, or how she got out of the room she was locked in, or how she got home. Those are not the kinds of things people forget. She "forgot" everything that would allow this to actually be investigated and for the people she accused of being there to have alibis. Pretty convenient, don't you think? These are the kinds of things people always "forget" if they weren't actually where they said they were.

It is possible to accuse anyone of anything if you don't provide a time, date, year, or location. You can make it all up an no one can ever prove any of it isn't true.
 
Stacyhs said:
What specifically said by Fudbucker is untrue?
You are not going by the evidence, you are going by a lot of biased assumptions on your part about Ford's motives, what she 'thinks', and how memory works.
Click to expand...

He/she was talking about some vague situation with an alter boy and a priest and said how I would react to it. This is what happens when people think I'm part of a group that all feel the same way about everything. I'm not. I said it would depend on the evidence. That's all.
 
Last edited:
ServiceSoon said:
Look out your window to discover the color of the sky in the universe where this is true.

Ford has not accused Kavanaugh of rape. Nor has Kavanaugh been found guilty of sexual assault.
Click to expand...

That's true, but Craig4 still can have an opinion based on what he knows. I don't see how that supports what Slings said.
 
Fudbucker said:
Because of the accusation, confession, and the photo. What, you think they just picked Franken's name out of a hat or something?
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. The right owes no debt of fairness to the left over Franken. The right doesn't need to disqualify Kavanaugh as repayment for disqualifying Franken *because the right didn't disqualify Franken*. The fairness argument I replied to is pants on head retarded.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
He confessed to the pretend grope that was photographed (worth noting he didn't actually touch her), but not to the sexual assault that was alleged.

Was what he did okay? No. I'm perfectly happy with him having lost his job over it. One of the joys of not being partisan is that you don't have to be hypocritical over issues like this.

But, sure, if that's the standard, then Kavanaugh was a self-confessed binge drinker who was a member of a society who have chanted "no means yes. Yes means anal". If we can find one compromising photo of him from that time then that should nix his nomination and lose him his current job. That's fair, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, if he confesses, or this actual evidence, sure. A chant from 2011 and his membership in the mid to late 80's proves what? Also, membership is a college frat impacts his high school activities how?

I don't know what really happened these decades ago. Nobody does. This is my general problem. Baseless accusations that go back multiple decades are impossible to prove. Memories are malleable. She may believe them, but that doesn't make them true. And your attempts to force a narrative, by playing fast and loose with time, doesn't help the matter either. T&C had a horrible chant two decades after he left. Tieing him to that group, decades after he left is dishonest. He didn't make that chant, join in the chant, because the chant did not exist when he was there.

How far back are we allowed to go to disqualify people? How far back can we go to determine the horribleness of a person based on groups of people they choose to associate with?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom