Trump questions Kavanaugh's accuser, says opponents want to 'destroy' nominee

[lovelomsak]

22 hours ago, neeray said:

Speak for yourself. I am 70 today but I can remember being young and dumb and royally pissed at 18. And I can remember that party like it was yesterday (not because they are good memories either). The same for the few other times that I got drunk, clear memories.

For some reason I do not believe you either .

[lovelomsak]

22 hours ago, Jingthing said:

She has no rational motivation to lie about this. As far as old memories, the truth is that people CAN remember TRAUMATIC experiences far into the past. One of my most vivid life memories is when I was five years old. I thought my mother had abandoned me at some weird house full of strangers. As far as drugged out teenage parties I do remember significant experiences. For Ford, what happened to her was obviously significant and traumatic. 

 

There is no proof it happened so why say it did?

  She can lie same as any one else walking this earth. And I think she is lieing . A sad statement of how far politics have sunk in USA

  She has a good reason to lie. To destroy this man's credibility plain and simple.

Edited September 23, 2018 by lovelomsak

[neeray]

8 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

For some reason I do not believe you either .

Up to you. Doesn't matter to me what or who you believe. You seem to have the Trump tattoo so I know you have to be a non-believer.

[lovelomsak]

22 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems you want to tell us you don't remember anything about what you did 30 or more years ago, correct?

Personally there is a lot I don't remember simply because it was not important. Going to a party, having some beer, yes that happened and I don't remember all the parties and all the beers.

But I remember certain moments. There was that time when I was totally drunk and a girl drove my car back and I was puking out of the window. And there were other moments I wouldn't want to write about.

Do I remember all the details after 30 years? No. Do I remember the exact date when it happened? No. But do I remember if some things happened at all? Yes, sure.

If the want to be supreme court judge does not remember what he did then he should look for another job which does not require a good memory.

Memories that far back get embellished to what the person wants it to be to serve their own end. I am also saying it may just never have happened.

  I had a sister rest her soul who claimed child abuse against my borther in law only in the end to admit it was what her doctors at the time wanted her to believe. It made lots of problems for my brother in law the family etc and the doctors jusr shrugged it of saying they were trying to do their best.

[wayned]

45 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

Memories that far back get embellished to what the person wants it to be to serve their own end. I am also saying it may just never have happened.

And t5hen again, maybe it did and and the memories of Kavanaugh have been embellished to what he wants them to be to serve his own end.  I really don't see why he did not demand that the administration reopen his background check and investigate if he thinks that he is truly innocent!

[wayned]

1 hour ago, Brunolem said:

So, should all these people be investigated?

If there was an FBI investigation, all of those that had been named would be questioned, not investigated, by an FBI agent,  The difference being that if they lied to an FBI agent, they would be guilty of a federal offense.

 

18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a federal crime for anyone who "in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully ... makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation."   The penalty is a fine and up to 5 years in a federal prison.

 

It certain;y would get us beyond the "he said, she said" mode!

Edited September 23, 2018 by wayned

[Brunolem]

55 minutes ago, wayned said:

If there was an FBI investigation, all of those that had been named would be questioned, not investigated, by an FBI agent,  The difference being that if they lied to an FBI agent, they would be guilty of a federal offense.

 

18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a federal crime for anyone who "in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully ... makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation."   The penalty is a fine and up to 5 years in a federal prison.

 

It certain;y would get us beyond the "he said, she said" mode!

The first question would be: is sexual assault a federal offense?

Otherwise it would have to be delt with by the local police, and not the FBI who probably has bigger fish to fry.

 

The second question would be: isn't there a status of limitation regarding such offenses?

 

Generally speaking, it seems very strange from a legal point of view, that someone can ask for an investigation decades after an event.

Guilty or not, an investigation is always bad for those who are investigated.

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

There is no proof it happened so why say it did?

  She can lie same as any one else walking this earth. And I think she is lieing . A sad statement of how far politics have sunk in USA

  She has a good reason to lie. To destroy this man's credibility plain and simple.

Why would she lie?

Ok, maybe she does not like the guy and maybe she does not want that he becomes supreme court judge. But would that be reason enough for a woman like her (decent job, not attention seeking, etc.) to lie and be remembered for years as that woman who made that accusation?

I am sure she would be happier living her life like until now without all that fuss.

It seems lots of Hollywood "stars" some out after many years and it seems at least some of them come out because they want to feel important (again) for a few days. But Ford is no such woman.

I understand if girls and women want to keep a situation like that a secret - especially in the world from 30 years ago. But I also understand that at some stage she just told herself: enough is enough. That guy is not the right choice to be a judge in the supreme court. She came out reluctant. Hopefully she will present a clear picture and hopefully people will believe her and sack him.

 

 

 

[wayned]

14 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

The first question would be: is sexual assault a federal offense?

Otherwise it would have to be delt with by the local police, and not the FBI who probably has bigger fish to fry.

 

The second question would be: isn't there a status of limitation regarding such offenses?

 

Generally speaking, it seems very strange from a legal point of view, that someone can ask for an investigation decades after an event.

Guilty or not, an investigation is always bad for those who are investigated.

 

 

The answer to the first question is, no it is not a federal offense, but the investigation would be part of a federal background check.  Prosecution of the offense would be the responsibility of the local authorities, but if you lie to the FBI during the background investigation, that is a federal offense.

 

The answer to the second question is that the offense took place in the State of Maryland where there is no statue of limitations on such offenses.

 

Generally speaking it is not strange  from a legal point of view to ask for such an investigation as it helps understand the moral character of the person being investigated who is being considered for confirmation for life to the highest judicial court in the land.

 

Guilty or not it is how normal judicial confirmations are handled and the background checks are normally completed prior to appointment but in this case and that of Anita Hill,the allegations came after the appointment had been made.  If you think that it's hard on the defendant and potential witnesses just think of about the victim .  If your are in doubt just google Charles Blow, an Op Ed columnist for the NYT, and listen to his description of his episode.

[stevenl]

25 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Why would she lie?

Ok, maybe she does not like the guy and maybe she does not want that he becomes supreme court judge. But would that be reason enough for a woman like her (decent job, not attention seeking, etc.) to lie and be remembered for years as that woman who made that accusation?

I am sure she would be happier living her life like until now without all that fuss.

It seems lots of Hollywood "stars" some out after many years and it seems at least some of them come out because they want to feel important (again) for a few days. But Ford is no such woman.

I understand if girls and women want to keep a situation like that a secret - especially in the world from 30 years ago. But I also understand that at some stage she just told herself: enough is enough. That guy is not the right choice to be a judge in the supreme court. She came out reluctant. Hopefully she will present a clear picture and hopefully people will believe her and sack him.

 

 

 

Very good post.

[roobaa01]

a grown up woman with a dr. title earned does not remember where and when the alleged assault happened, i beg your pardon, seems to me that her whole story is a fantasy .

 

supoena that woman and her legal staff to make em move.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[wayned]

7 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

a grown up woman with a dr. title earned does not remember where and when the alleged assault happened, i beg your pardon, seems to me that her whole story is a fantasy .

 

supoena that woman and her legal staff to make em move.

 

wbr

roobaa01

I'm a grouwn up man with a masters degree and I can't remember where I put my eyeglasses 10 minutes ago, but I do remember when I the date that I got my first Triumph motor cycle.  It leaked more that the white house.

[Brunolem]

41 minutes ago, wayned said:

The answer to the first question is, no it is not a federal offense, but the investigation would be part of a federal background check.  Prosecution of the offense would be the responsibility of the local authorities, but if you lie to the FBI during the background investigation, that is a federal offense.

 

The answer to the second question is that the offense took place in the State of Maryland where there is no statue of limitations on such offenses.

 

Generally speaking it is not strange  from a legal point of view to ask for such an investigation as it helps understand the moral character of the person being investigated who is being considered for confirmation for life to the highest judicial court in the land.

 

Guilty or not it is how normal judicial confirmations are handled and the background checks are normally completed prior to appointment but in this case and that of Anita Hill,the allegations came after the appointment had been made.  If you think that it's hard on the defendant and potential witnesses just think of about the victim .  If your are in doubt just google Charles Blow, an Op Ed columnist for the NYT, and listen to his description of his episode.

With no location, no date and at least for the time being no witnesses and no one who can confirm having attented this party, one can already imagine how long this investigation could last.

 

We are talking years here...nothing like the Stormy Daniels affair, but something much more like the never ending Mueller investigation

 

Thus, starting an investigation would de facto put an end to Cavanaugh's confirmation since the Supreme Court couldn't wait for so long.

[wayned]

10 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

With no location, no date and at least for the time being no witnesses and no one who can confirm having attented this party, one can already imagine how long this investigation could last.

 

We are talking years here...nothing like the Stormy Daniels affair, but something much more like the never ending Mueller investigation

 

Thus, starting an investigation would de facto put an end to Cavanaugh's confirmation since the Supreme Court couldn't wait for so long.

If the investigation had started when her name was first released last week it would most likely be over by now.  They would interview potential witnesses starting with the schools that they attended and Mark Judge who was supposedly in the room and if there was no corroboration of the event that would be what was reported and the investigation would end.  At least there would be an attempt at normal process.

[mcambl61]

18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Well, I think he did it and I agree the lying is a big deal. Especially as he's probably going to lie about it under oath very soon. But I reckon his calculation is that as the deck is stacked and the republicans are insisting on an unfair he said/she said sham hearing without further witnesses that he'll definitely get confirmed that way. I agree the ethical thing would be to do as you suggest. But doing that in the current era may or may not result in a confirmation. The thing is as you read more about Ford's story is that she's been traumatized by this incident all her adult life. Kavanaugh could sell it as a youthful mistake but the damage he did which he would have then confessed to will be there for all the world to hear about. 

So your standard of a believable accusations are that you are against his personal views. 

 

Never mind the accuser cannot even name where or when it happened. 

 

A truly incredible level of bias and ignorance. 

 

The whole thing is democrat run sham. 

[metisdead]

Posts containing links to non credible sources have been removed. 

 

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

 

 

[mcambl61]

1 hour ago, wayned said:

The answer to the first question is, no it is not a federal offense, but the investigation would be part of a federal background check.  Prosecution of the offense would be the responsibility of the local authorities, but if you lie to the FBI during the background investigation, that is a federal offense.

 

The answer to the second question is that the offense took place in the State of Maryland where there is no statue of limitations on such offenses.

 

Generally speaking it is not strange  from a legal point of view to ask for such an investigation as it helps understand the moral character of the person being investigated who is being considered for confirmation for life to the highest judicial court in the land.

 

Guilty or not it is how normal judicial confirmations are handled and the background checks are normally completed prior to appointment but in this case and that of Anita Hill,the allegations came after the appointment had been made.  If you think that it's hard on the defendant and potential witnesses just think of about the victim .  If your are in doubt just google Charles Blow, an Op Ed columnist for the NYT, and listen to his description of his episode.

It is all a purposeful act and it will fail completely. 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, roobaa01 said:

a grown up woman with a dr. title earned does not remember where and when the alleged assault happened, i beg your pardon, seems to me that her whole story is a fantasy .

 

supoena that woman and her legal staff to make em move.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Just one example. I had an accident and was in hospital for about a week over 30 years ago. I remember where the accident happened, I remember that I had tremendous headache. But I don't remember the exact date. I don't even remember the year or the hospital name. Maybe with some research I could find out some of those detail but I don't think I would find much.

At that time nobody wrote emails, no mobile phones with pictures and exact times and GPS coordinates, etc.

Most of us will remember the important things which happened, even if we don't remember all the details. To accuse someone is lying because she does not remember details from 30 years ago is stupid. I think it would be a lot more suspicious if she would claim she knew all the details...

[Thakkar]

21 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I don't know about perfectly. If he was a pothead in school, that's a big nothing. But this accusation is about violent sexual assault. 

 

Actually, decades ago—I forget the name and details—but a supreme court nominee withdrew when it was revealed that he had, years and years earlier, smoked pot.

 

How times have changed! Now, to the “family values” crowd at least, accused attempted rapists are acceptable.

Edited September 23, 2018 by Thakkar

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

Actually, decades ago—I forget the name and details—but a supreme court nominee withdrew when it was revealed that he had, years and years earlier, smoked pot.

 

How times have changed! Now, to the “family values” crowd at least, accused attempted rapists are acceptable.

Yes, that's true but it wouldn't be disqualifying now. 

[Nyezhov]

4 hours ago, wayned said:

If there was an FBI investigation, all of those that had been named would be questioned, not investigated, by an FBI agent,  The difference being that if they lied to an FBI agent, they would be guilty of a federal offense.

 

18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a federal crime for anyone who "in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully ... makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation."   The penalty is a fine and up to 5 years in a federal prison.

 

It certain;y would get us beyond the "he said, she said" mode!

FBI agents dont have mental lie detectors. Not matter what, its he said she said

[mikebike]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, that's true but it wouldn't be disqualifying now. 

It has not been tested recently. With Sessions in place smoking dope could well be more egregious than sexual assault.

[Nyezhov]

Its all the politics of hypocrisy. Compare Ellison.

[Thakkar]

14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

17 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

Actually, decades ago—I forget the name and details—but a supreme court nominee withdrew when it was revealed that he had, years and years earlier, smoked pot.

 

How times have changed! Now, to the “family values” crowd at least, accused attempted rapists are acceptable.

Yes, that's true but it wouldn't be disqualifying now. 

 

To the false piety jesus crowd, it seems that the new—and apparently only—disqualifying element is that the nominee be nominated by a democrat.

[OneMoreFarang]

4 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Not matter what, its he said she said

Ok, so let's listen to both of them.

The interesting thing with he said and she said is how they say it and what exactly they say.

Lots of lies are exposed because people don't remember the lies they told previously.

 

Let's assume for a minute he is guilty and he remembers what happens. What will he do?

Claim he never knew her?

Claim he never touched her?

He was never at any party?

He never got drunk?

Or he was often drunk and does not remember what he did when he was drunk?

There are lots of opportunities to run into problems.

 

And for her it's similar.

How long did she know him already?

Did she kiss him before?

Did they get drunk together?

Did she visit parties like that regularly?

How many boys tries to touch her?

Does she remember all the name of all the guys?

 

I am not the one who asks the questions. I guess that will be people who have lots of experience in asking questions.

Let's wait and see and let's hear both of them.

Then, and only then, can we make up our minds who is lying. It must be at least one of them.

[Thakkar]

20 hours ago, Brunolem said:

In theory certainly, but one has to be realistic.

 

Washington is not called the swamp for no reason...and swamp creatures, such as those who decide who will seat where, including at the Supreme Court, are not looking for saints, but rather for kindred spirits.

 

In politics, and the Supreme Court is a political institution, considering the selection process, no one reaches the top echelons with one's hands clean.

 

I have no idea whether Cavanaugh did assault that woman long ago, yet he probably accumulated quite a number a skeletons in his closet before reaching the step where he stands now.

 

The thing is, even in all the swampiness (and I don’t agree that it’s all a swamp. There are many genuinely good people in washington—and I’ve met some—who want to work within the system to improve the world), if you’re not smart enough to hide well your indiscrations, you’re not smart enough to be on top the pile. And a supreme court justice is as top as it gets.

[roobaa01]

and the ford fantascy saga continues 4 th purported witness no recollection of happenings, thus democrats hail marys becoming more and more evident. thereto, the midterms will be for god sake and the us a democratic desaster after their kavanaugh smear stunt.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Nyezhov]

24 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Ok, so let's listen to both of them.

The interesting thing with he said and she said is how they say it and what exactly they say.

Lots of lies are exposed because people don't remember the lies they told previously.

 

Let's assume for a minute he is guilty and he remembers what happens. What will he do?

Claim he never knew her?

Claim he never touched her?

He was never at any party?

He never got drunk?

Or he was often drunk and does not remember what he did when he was drunk?

There are lots of opportunities to run into problems.

 

And for her it's similar.

How long did she know him already?

Did she kiss him before?

Did they get drunk together?

Did she visit parties like that regularly?

How many boys tries to touch her?

Does she remember all the name of all the guys?

 

I am not the one who asks the questions. I guess that will be people who have lots of experience in asking questions.

Let's wait and see and let's hear both of them.

Then, and only then, can we make up our minds who is lying. It must be at least one of them.

At the end of the day, its gonna be he said, she said. He will get confirmed and she will write a book, and it will be a wonderful issue for the Dems to screech about as the economy gets stronger. ?

[Nyezhov]

10 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

and the ford fantascy saga continues 4 th purported witness no recollection of happenings, thus democrats hail marys becoming more and more evident. thereto, the midterms will be for god sake and the us a democratic desaster after their kavanaugh smear stunt.

 

wbr

roobaa01

And the ford fantasy saga continues: a 4th purported witness has no recollection of the incident happening, thus,   the Democrats Hail Mary strategy becomes more and more evident. Therefore, the midterms will be  a democratic disaster after this smear stunt.

 

Fixed it for you ?

Edited September 23, 2018 by Nyezhov

[wayned]

The hearing is set for Thursday morning, her first then him.  I'm not saying that she will, but, after the hearing, if she thinks that the Senators treated her like a total piece of crap, she could immediately go to the Montgomery County Maryland Sher riff's office and file charges against him for sexual assault.  There is no statute of limitations in Maryland on this crime.  I wonder if the Senate would then confirm someone with an outstanding criminal charge hanging over their head to the court and there would definitely have to be an investigation, this time by the state of Maryland which could take a very long time!