On 9/19/2018 at 8:35 AM, dcutman said:

Getting the accuser to show and testify under oath should really be the first thing. Witch upon this point she is not willing to do. Unless all the sudden the US constitution has changed to, guilty until you prove your innocents.

Are you really completely ignorant as to how the judicial system really works, in most cases ( esp so in “modern” countries)?

 

if so..... commission  of crime.... accuse alleged perp(s)... investigate alleged crime... charge perpetrators in need(in need).... prosecute (in need... their day in court),which includes testifying, a la hand on bible

 

very simplistic... but that seems best, given para one above

good article by Jonathan, Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/407405-ford-has-no-right-to-set-conditions-for-kavanaugh-testimony

Ford has no right to set conditions for Kavanaugh testimony in a nutshell .

 

Also hrc on racheal madow show says that Dr.Ford might not even testify even after an investigation. how convenient.

 

 

Meanwhile the accuser has offered no additional tidbits of info. 

 

just a game imo.?

57 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

These facts of yours, wher did they come from?

https://www.thetrumptimes.com/2018/09/19/the-nitty-gritty-of-the-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford/

 

he got that info from a news outlet called “ the trump times”.

Not sure... could be wrong... but I’m guessing... mind, guessing only

 

But.... I reckon they might be biased in one way.... or another

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

These facts of yours, wher did they come from?

https://www.thetrumptimes.com/2018/09/19/the-nitty-gritty-of-the-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford/

 

Now.. to be fair... here’s another link below.... We know that 65 women... (or a good number anyway) from where?... don’t know... but they came out and said Brett Kat was a good guy... funnily enough, that prompted over 400 women ( simple math... roughly seven times as many voices) to come forward to support Ford.

 

://www.inquisitr.com/5077751/julia-louis-dreyfus-joins-400-alumnae-who-believe-kavanaugh-accuser/

21 minutes ago, farcanell said:

https://www.thetrumptimes.com/2018/09/19/the-nitty-gritty-of-the-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford/

 

he got that info from a news outlet called “ the trump times”.

Not sure... could be wrong... but I’m guessing... mind, guessing only

 

But.... I reckon they might be biased in one way.... or another

I know about the non-failing Trump Times.  They only have the best people.  ?

lol.... Democratic donor and supporter.... beyond bizarre

 

according to wiki... whoopee... she donated $80.50 to Bernie Sanders....

 

????, definitely demonstrating that she would be a party to a political conspiracy.... but I’m no profiler, so I assume the dems do have them, and that they actively seek out potential people to use to mount assaults on the republican walls.... people like those donating 80 bucks to their cause..... 5555 

19 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

I know about the non-failing Trump Times.  They only have the best people.  ?

And I'd imagine they use the best words....

"She is accusing somebody of sexual assault, of course it should be investigated by the proper authorities. And a senate commission is not the proper authorities"

 

Is sexual assault a Federal crime, or is it one to be investigated by local authorities.? The head of the senate commission said on the news that they have investigators that have the ability to do this, and have been used in other cases .

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I did.

 

More hogwash straight out of the playbook that goes:

 

‘Woman makes accusation of sexual attack by powerful man - Attack the woman’.

 

And so many man want to be 'attacked' by the ladies; without complaints. LOL

Take care.

 

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I did.

 

More hogwash straight out of the playbook that goes:

 

‘Woman makes accusation of sexual attack by powerful man - Attack the woman’.

 

And so many men want to be 'attacked' by the ladies; without complaints. LOL

Take care.

 

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I did.

 

More hogwash straight out of the playbook that goes:

 

‘Woman makes accusation of sexual attack by powerful man - Attack the woman’.

 

And so many man want to be 'attacked' by the ladies; without complaints. LOL

Take care.

Dang, had connection problems here. Sorry for the multi posts. 

They are working on the power lines and such over here at this moment.

Having no connection but sent messages seem to be saved somehow.

I’ve no idea what the legal ramifications are in this case. Read a few articles one saying that in Mass. this would be a misdemeanor not 

a Felony. Per Mass. statue of limitations laws the time has passed to 

prosecute. 

 

If this happened to her then let it be stated so if deemed. Articles said

this is not a crime under the FBI umbrella. 

 

Artilces state hes already been vetted by the FBI which typically go back 7-10 years on background check. 

 

One article brings questions if valid.  Kavanaugh’s side, how do you defend yourself from a three-decade-old accusation? That’s doubly true when the accuser isn’t even sure what year the assault took place in, let alone what day or exactly where it occurred other than a vague description of a suburban Maryland student’s house on a night when no parents were home. There’s a reason we have statutes of limitations in criminal cases

 

Ok that’s my jab at armchair law with nothing better to do....ha ha 

 

I’m not a Trump fan but if it’s a ploy to discredit of delay that’s is wrong.

one thing good about not living in the USA don’t have to listen to all the crap slinging 

 

It’s whisky river take me home time! Enjoy! 

9 minutes ago, hugocnx said:

Dang, had connection problems here. Sorry for the multi posts. 

They are working on the power lines and such over here at this moment.

Having no connection but sent messages seem to be saved somehow.

Repeating what you said 3 times hasn’t improved it any.

23 minutes ago, DJ54 said:

I’ve no idea what the legal ramifications are in this case. Read a few articles one saying that in Mass. this would be a misdemeanor not 

a Felony. Per Mass. statue of limitations laws the time has passed to 

prosecute. 

 

If this happened to her then let it be stated so if deemed. Articles said

this is not a crime under the FBI umbrella. 

 

Artilces state hes already been vetted by the FBI which typically go back 7-10 years on background check. 

 

One article brings questions if valid.  Kavanaugh’s side, how do you defend yourself from a three-decade-old accusation? That’s doubly true when the accuser isn’t even sure what year the assault took place in, let alone what day or exactly where it occurred other than a vague description of a suburban Maryland student’s house on a night when no parents were home. There’s a reason we have statutes of limitations in criminal cases

 

Ok that’s my jab at armchair law with nothing better to do....ha ha 

 

I’m not a Trump fan but if it’s a ploy to discredit of delay that’s is wrong.

one thing good about not living in the USA don’t have to listen to all the crap slinging 

 

It’s whisky river take me home time! Enjoy! 

Cool... enjoy the ride home... but when you sober up, consider that this is less about the crime at the time, (unprosecutable now) ... but more about a Supreme Court nominee (for life) lying under oath (as a minimum), right now.

 

maybe an investigation might clear that up.

Let's get real here. 

This isn't an alleged crime that could possibly be prosecuted now.

It's past the limitations and there won't be any hard physical evidence.

If it actually went to court, there would lots of reasonable doubt anyway.

But that isn't what this is about. 

This is a senate process, not a criminal trial. 

Ford has no reason to lie, to ruin her life at this stage other than finally getting out the truth about a man on the verge of being gifted epic power. For life.

It's confirmed (and I know this personally) that the culture back then in such elite schools found this kind of behavior as accused more or less normal.

So she's PROBABLY telling the truth, and he's PROBABLY lying.

But the only way at this point to measure how much probably either way is a more detailed INVESTIGATION beyond the he said/she said statements.

Reasonable doubt isn't relevant here. Conclusions that he probably did it and he's probably LYING about the denial (under oath presumably) are more than enough to deny him the position.

The only one who can order this FBI investigation in this case is the white house.

Of course "trump" won't do that.

So the republicans will probably be able to steamroll this through soon.

But they will pay a political price especially from women. 

 

Maybe some of you don't get the environment back then. Read and learn --

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/these-are-the-stories-of-our-lives-prep-school-alumni-hear-echoes-in-assault-claim/2018/09/19/b6343f74-bc2e-11e8-b7d2-0773aa1e33da_story.html

 

 

Quote

 

Terrance MacMullan, a 1990 graduate of Georgetown Prep who is a philosophy professor at Eastern Washington University, remembers his high school as a place where women and sex “took on this mystical, fetishized, totemic role in our lives, and there was this idea that once they got drunk, they were really available for this. That was one of the psychoses or bad ideas I had about women while I was there.”

On Tuesday, MacMullan signed the letter of support for Ford. 

 

 

1 hour ago, DJ54 said:

One article brings questions if valid.  Kavanaugh’s side, how do you defend yourself from a three-decade-old accusation? That’s doubly true when the accuser isn’t even sure what year the assault took place in, let alone what day or exactly where it occurred 

 

I’m curious. How many assaults at how many parties would he have had to engage in for him to find it hard to defend against *this particular* assault?

On 9/20/2018 at 6:08 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Repeating what you said 3 times hasn’t improved it any.

See, that's who you are. I said sorry for the inconvenience, but you need to make a sarcastic comment about it.

 

Well, no one can have another opinion than yours? Fine to me.

Had that problem with many leftists befor.

 

Specially for you; just in the news: (though this doesn't prove that K didn't do it or she didn't seduce him or any other scenario)

"A whopping five high school yearbooks show that not only did Ford attend wild parties that make Animal House look tame, but she was a prominent participant and even a leader.

These shocking developments, including a celebration of drinking to amnesia, completely impeach her already baseless claims against Brett Kavanaugh."

 

 

 

57 minutes ago, hugocnx said:

These shocking developments, including a celebration of drinking to amnesia, completely impeach her already baseless claims against Brett Kavanaugh."

How does the fact (assuming above is actually true) that someone went to parties “impeach her (...) claims” that she was sexually assaulted at one of those parties? Wouldn’t it have to be the other way round; her claims of sexual assault at a high school party would be impeached if someone found she actually never went to any party. 

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It's confirmed (and I know this personally) that the culture back then in such elite schools found this kind of behavior as accused more or less normal.

So she's PROBABLY telling the truth, and he's PROBABLY lying.

But the only way at this point to measure how much probably either way is a more detailed INVESTIGATION beyond the he said/she said statements.

Reasonable doubt isn't relevant here. Conclusions that he probably did it and he's probably LYING about the denial (under oath presumably) are more than enough to deny him the position.

 

 

And there you have it.

 

Our resident Alt-Leftist saying that that it must be true because she said so and he should be denied the position because... errr... she said so.

 

Good job that never in the history of humanity has a woman tried to destroy a mans life by accusing him of sexual assault. Except Bill Clinton of course - all of his accusers were just bitter women trying to destroy a great liberal man.

 

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

 

And there you have it.

 

Our resident Alt-Leftist saying that that it must be true because she said so and he should be denied the position because... errr... she said so.

 

Good job that never in the history of humanity has a woman tried to destroy a mans life by accusing him of sexual assault. Except Bill Clinton of course - all of his accusers were just bitter women trying to destroy a great liberal man.

 

There we have it, someone offers the opinion thatthat the victim is  ‘probably telling the truth’ and the alleged culprit is ‘probably lying’ but that this should be resolved by an ‘investigation’.

 

Illiberal jumps to the conclusion that the person offering that opinion has decided who’s telling the truth and who’s the guilt party.

 

 

Meanwhile the claim that Kavanaugh is a ‘great man’ is without basis.

 

So much of what needs to be known about Kavanaugh before making such a claim is being withheld from public scrutiny.

 

 

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

 

And there you have it.

 

Our resident Alt-Leftist saying that that it must be true because she said so and he should be denied the position because... errr... she said so.

Wow. He clearly did NOT write that, and that the matter should be INVESTIGATED. Unbelievable how you could twist his words so shamelessly. 

 

Delay, delay, delay is the political game being played here nothing more, nothing less.  Hope kavanaugh sues her as it's defamation with NO proof.

19 hours ago, hugocnx said:

See, that's who you are. I said sorry for the inconvenience, but you need to make a sarcastic comment about it.

 

Well, no one can have another opinion than yours? Fine to me.

Had that problem with many leftists befor.

 

Specially for you; just in the news: (though this doesn't prove that K didn't do it or she didn't seduce him or any other scenario)

"A whopping five high school yearbooks show that not only did Ford attend wild parties that make Animal House look tame, but she was a prominent participant and even a leader.

These shocking developments, including a celebration of drinking to amnesia, completely impeach her already baseless claims against Brett Kavanaugh."

 

When the girl is drunk—she got herself into the mess, she shouldn’t have been a drunk slut.

When the boy is drunk—he didn’t know what he was doing, so shouldn’t be punished.

 

When a woman says, “he raped me a long time ago” she’s told: why drag up the past, it was so long ago.

When a girl says, “he raped me last night” she’s told: don’t ruin his future, he’s just a kid.

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Reasonable doubt isn't relevant here. Conclusions that he probably did it and he's probably LYING about the denial (under oath presumably) are more than enough to deny him the position.

Not sure where you are from. The Us Constitution and the first 10 of its amendments, called the Bill of Rights, is on the internet. You should actually read it before you make any more ridiculous statements that makes yourself look such a fool. 

3 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

When the girl is drunk—she got herself into the mess, she shouldn’t have been a drunk slut.

When the boy is drunk—he didn’t know what he was doing, so shouldn’t be punished.

 

When a woman says, “he raped me a long time ago” she’s told: why drag up the past, it was so long ago.

When a girl says, “he raped me last night” she’s told: don’t ruin his future, he’s just a kid.

 

When a woman says - "he tried to take my clothes off 35 years ago" she's hailed by liberals as a 'victim'

 

When she says - I don't remember 'where, how, which year, who was there'  liberals say 'oh that doesn't matter'

 

When her therapist says - "she said 4 people present and she says 2"  oh never mind that small detail

 

When the witness says "it didn't happen"  -  he's disregarded 

 

When the committee offers a date - 'in public or secret' she needs 'more time'

 

 

Come on give it a break this is totally POLITICS and no neutral and reasonable person cannot see this. Leave your political bias behind and join neutrals, like me, who say this is BS!

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 

When a woman says - "he tried to take my clothes off 35 years ago" she's hailed by liberals as a 'victim'

 

When she says - I don't remember 'where, how, which year, who was there'  liberals say 'oh that doesn't matter'

 

When her therapist says - "she said 4 people present and she says 2"  oh never mind that small detail

 

When the witness says "it didn't happen"  -  he's disregarded 

 

When the committee offers a date - 'in public or secret' she needs 'more time'

 

 

Come on give it a break this is totally POLITICS and no neutral and reasonable person cannot see this. Leave your political bias behind and join neutrals, like me, who say this is BS!

 

Nobody’s saying any of the things you made up.

Reasonable people, including the accuser, are asking the WH to ask the FBI to reopen Kavanaugh’s background check and examine this accusation for its veracity.

Just now, Thakkar said:

 

Nobody’s saying any of the things you made up.

Reasonable people, including the accuser, are asking the WH to ask the FBI to reopen Kavanaugh’s background check and examine this accusation for its veracity.

You know that's not true. Anyway why wait?  nothing about politics right?  they had the letter in July, it was unreported for 35 years and then this registered Democrat throws in the political grenade. All my points are truthful and accurate which cannot always be said for your liberal 'spin games'.

 

This guy has had 6 FBI checks, 100s hours of questions and was about to be confirmed. Then this woman throws in "he tried to take off my clothes"?  if you were A-political you would see the set-up which is the obvious elephant in the room. I don't want a conservative, right wing anti pro choice on SCOTUS but I hate this nasty partisan game playing (and both side do it).  Politics in the US is in the gutter.

23 minutes ago, dcutman said:

Not sure where you are from. The Us Constitution and the first 10 of its amendments, called the Bill of Rights, is on the internet. You should actually read it before you make any more ridiculous statements that makes yourself look such a fool. 

Doesn't matter where he is from. We're not talking about a court of law here, so reasonable doubt isn't relevant.

5 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I don't want a conservative, right wing anti pro choice on SCOTUS 

Do you want a sexual predator as SCOTUS? Do you want a SCOTUS who’s carrying an accusation of sexual attacks with him that have never been cleared?

 

Because if not, you should support that this accusation is being properly investigated, apart from the woman’s situation herself.