Status
Not open for further replies.
You're right that this is indeed more evidence that the correct course of action is for there to be a proper FBI investigation into all the allegations surrounding Kavanaugh. Delaying the vote until everything can be properly investigated is the only reasonable course of action.

Probably also worthy of investigation is why the Republicans reportedly interviewed these men without informing the Democrats that the assertions had been made or the interviews were to be conducted, breaking Senate rules in doing so.

And the cops? Presumably admitting to an assault should lead to charges?
 
she claims the therapists notes were wrong, you know the ones she using to corroborate her tale.

Now two men have come forawrd and said that they were the ones involved.
 
As I said, there were six people in the house. She had to have gotten there with one of them. (I said "he" before, but that was meant as the generic version, i.e. someone of unknown gender.)

She presumably got home without needing assistance, as a fifteen year old I managed to get where I needed to get despite my family not having a car, there are other options.


No, I cannot imagine that, in a group of six people, one of them vanishes leaves and the others find the event so insignificant that it is lost to their memory decades later.

Bolding mine. Someone vanishing,memorable. Someone leaving, even leaving after (what might have appeared to be) an argument, not so much.

She herself finds the need to walk home because she has been assaulted so insignificant that she forgets it.

She's able to make the journey unassisted one way then?
 
If this has been posted before please pardon. Two men claim to have been the ones Ford described in her statement.
 
Do these guys have the right to be believed?

"Two men have come forward to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to claim that they are the ones who actually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford during a house party in 1982 — and not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh."

https://nypost.com/2018/09/27/two-men-tell-senate-that-they-not-kavanaugh-assaulted-ford/

You're right that this is indeed more evidence that the correct course of action is for there to be a proper FBI investigation into all the allegations surrounding Kavanaugh. Delaying the vote until everything can be properly investigated is the only reasonable course of action.

Probably also worthy of investigation is why the Republicans reportedly interviewed these men without informing the Democrats that the assertions had been made or the interviews were to be conducted, breaking Senate rules in doing so.

Seconding Squeegee Beckenhem's opinion that this is yet more evidence that the FBI needs to reopen the background check. Let's let practice the "I" in FBI.

If we need to delay the vote, we delay. If we need to seek a candidate with fewer skeletons in the closet, we do that. There is no need to rush this through, the GOP has the votes they need to get a candidate through, they'll have those votes for a while yet even if the election goes very badly for them.
 
I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion. If you take her at her word, we know she said it - not that the therapist wrote it down.

I've never been in therapy, nor am a therapist, so I accept I'm not in a qualified position to comment, but I don't think you can assume that the therapist would have taken such detailed notes. Ford doesn't say that she's seen the notes, only that she said the name. Is it usual practice for therapists to note down such specific details?


If the FBI was allowed to reopen the background investigation, they could ask the shrink directly. No need for speculation.
 
Hearings underway now. Repub prosecutor starting questions. Even at age 52, there's something girlishly timid about Ford. It's not a surprise that she would have been targeted by predators at age 15.
 
Last edited:
Re:2 men admitting they were the ones involved in Ford's assault...

And the cops? Presumably admitting to an assault should lead to charges?
Interesting idea.

I think someone pointed out that there is no statute of limitations on the particular crime that Ford was a victim of. Now, since Kavanaugh is saying he didn't do it (and without admissions from any co-conspirators) its unlikely that they would be able to get a conviction if charges were pressed. (That doesn't mean Kavanaugh should be appointed to the supreme court, since the burden of proof should be less for what amounts to a job interview than a criminal case.)

But here we have 2 people actually admitting their guilt to what is a crime (and one that is possibly punishable). I do have to wonder if they'd stick by their claims if they were actually facing jail time.

There are a few possibilities:

- That these people actually were the guilty party and had a bout of remorse years later.

- Ford was assaulted by Kavanaugh, and these people actually assaulted some other girl but got the identity of their victim wrong. (Hey, some of the Kavanaugh apologists have used that excuse with Ford... "Maybe she got the attacker's identity wrong".)

- These people had nothing to do with the crime but decided to claim that they did it in order to protect Kavanaugh for some reason
 
Interesting idea.

I think someone pointed out that there is no statute of limitations on the particular crime that Ford was a victim of. Now, since Kavanaugh is saying he didn't do it (and without admissions from any co-conspirators) its unlikely that they would be able to get a conviction if charges were pressed. (That doesn't mean Kavanaugh should be appointed to the supreme court, since the burden of proof should be less for what amounts to a job interview than a criminal case.)

But here we have 2 people actually admitting their guilt to what is a crime (and one that is possibly punishable). I do have to wonder if they'd stick by their claims if they were actually facing jail time.

There are a few possibilities:

- That these people actually were the guilty party and had a bout of remorse years later.

- Ford was assaulted by Kavanaugh, and these people actually assaulted some other girl but got the identity of their victim wrong. (Hey, some of the Kavanaugh apologists have used that excuse with Ford... "Maybe she got the attacker's identity wrong".)

- These people had nothing to do with the crime but decided to claim that they did it in order to protect Kavanaugh for some reason

You forgot the possibility that they are just looking for their 15 minutes of fame.
 
So, best case for Dems? BK removes his name from consideration

Trump appoints arch conservative Amy Coney Barrett as next nominee.

Gets through Senate before their terms expire.

She makes Brett kavanaugh look like ******* Mother jones!
 
So, best case for Dems? BK removes his name from consideration

Trump appoints arch conservative Amy Coney Barrett as next nominee.

Gets through Senate before their terms expire.

She makes Brett kavanaugh look like ******* Mother jones!

so your argument is that everyone should settle for the lesser evil?

dream on.

Barrett is embarrassingly underqualified, so she won't cut it even for hyper-partisan Republicans.
But the major point is that the Democrats will have fought an unwinnable battle and won - and Republicans, in control of all parts of government, can't even manage a straight-forward nomination.
 
Yet another reason to keep him off the Supreme Court.

To be clear, I am no advocate for religious belief, but I do think that the “No religious test for any office” part of the Constitution is quite important.

If religion compromises ability to do the job, fine, but not belief alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom