Kavanaugh has an accuser

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,914
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
(CNN)Brett Kavanaugh's accuser now has a name, and the Republican Party's bid to swiftly lift him onto the Supreme Court seems to be spinning out of control.
The emergence of California professor Christine Blasey Ford, and her willingness to testify to Congress about the allegations, unleashed a frenetic sequence of events Monday that threatened to unravel the confirmation process of President Donald Trump's nominee, who had seemed on a smooth glide path to becoming the man to enshrine a conservative majority for a generation.
Democrats demanded that Kavanaugh's confirmation process should be put on hold pending an investigation. A planned vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday on the nomination now appears to be at risk of slipping.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-future-nomination/index.html

Is this going to destroy Kavanaugh's chance at the Supreme Court?
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
(CNN)Brett Kavanaugh's accuser now has a name, and the Republican Party's bid to swiftly lift him onto the Supreme Court seems to be spinning out of control.
The emergence of California professor Christine Blasey Ford, and her willingness to testify to Congress about the allegations, unleashed a frenetic sequence of events Monday that threatened to unravel the confirmation process of President Donald Trump's nominee, who had seemed on a smooth glide path to becoming the man to enshrine a conservative majority for a generation.
Democrats demanded that Kavanaugh's confirmation process should be put on hold pending an investigation. A planned vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday on the nomination now appears to be at risk of slipping.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-future-nomination/index.html

Is this going to destroy Kavanaugh's chance at the Supreme Court?

I don't know why it should. The attempt to derail him (delay until after the election is more like it) is obviously a desperation move by the Dems and has no evidence behind it. But if some Senators who have been wavering are looking for an excuse, valid or not, then they might vote against him and hide behind this claim. I don't know if the ones facing reelection this fall could get away with that, however, since they would risk looking even more craven than usual to the voters.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,205
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
As one with an open mind on these issues I would say look into it and then make a decision. All these others who have been blamed in many cases were gone before there was much of anything done and I will tell you I dont agree with going back 30 and 40 years. How do you defend something like that? The problem nowadays is that anything that is said is automatically believed without much of an investigation and in many cases it is a he said she said thing. I thought in this country it was innocent until proven guilty, proven being the operative word. I am sure this will not be well received but it is how I feel about this issue.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If that is the way chosen, the issue will be quickly disposed of since, as I noted before, there is absolutely no evidence yet to support her story. But because that is so, I would say to anticipate that the Dems will produce OTHER accusers and then conclude that where there is phony smoke, there must be real fire.
 

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Of course it should be investigated now that something has come to light, but it's a Democrat cheap-shot. Sen. Feinstein has had this since July. And now this person feels a "civic responsibility"? We'll see what comes of it
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,560
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
They were both teenagers (under age) and she said he was drunk and she can't remember any other details about the location or why she was there. My guess is she was drunk too. She initially said there were 4 guys in the room and now has said there were only 2. But she passed a lie detector test. What were the questions on it? How did a 15 year old girl "escape" 4 teenaged boys who were trying to rip her clothes off? It doesn't make sense and there are missing pieces that suggest she most likely said No and he stopped...if it happened. If he was too drunk of course he might not remember the incident.

Now almost 40 years later should he be punished by not getting the position he was nominated for? My feeling is no. These ladies who wait decades are not helping society by doing their civic duty...it should have happened sooner.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
They were both teenagers (under age) and she said he was drunk and she can't remember any other details about the location or why she was there. My guess is she was drunk too. She initially said there were 4 guys in the room and now has said there were only 2. But she passed a lie detector test. What were the questions on it? How did a 15 year old girl "escape" 4 teenaged boys who were trying to rip her clothes off? It doesn't make sense and there are missing pieces that suggest she most likely said No and he stopped...if it happened. If he was too drunk of course he might not remember the incident.

Now almost 40 years later should he be punished by not getting the position he was nominated for? My feeling is no. These ladies who wait decades are not helping society by doing their civic duty...it should have happened sooner.

The statute of limitations protects him from punishment under the law. The issue now is one of character and truthfulness. The question that the issue impinges upon is appointment to a life long job as a member of the SCOTUS.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,560
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The statute of limitations protects him from punishment under the law. The issue now is one of character and truthfulness. The question that the issue impinges upon is appointment to a life long job as a member of the SCOTUS.

Well I did say punished by not getting the position.

How do we determine a middle aged man's character by looking at his action as a 17 year old whose brain is not fully developed into maturity? A 15 year old girl who can't remember details was pawed at by a teenaged boy. How in the world does that prevent a middle aged man from getting to the supreme court? It shouldn't.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I was listening to a newsperson on TV today who made two claims that I thought are typical and certain to be used by Sen. Diane Feinstein (Who did not get the endorsement of her own party for re-election and so must pull some sensational rabbit out of her hat before November in order to prove herself to be sufficiently loyal to the Party)--

1. We should trust women to be telling the truth, even if it is just one.

However, the accuser of the Lacrosse team at Duke University was proven to have made it all up. And the woman who accused the fraternity at the University of Virginia of raping her was shown to have made it all up, too.

2. What would this woman professor have to gain by lying about Kavanagh?

Well, she is an outspoken leftwing extremist, contributor to the Democratic Party, voluminous contributor of political rhetoric on social media sites, and participant in the anti-Trump Woman's March on Washington last year in which she was one of those who wore a so-called puss* hat. If she is fervent about her political views and opposition to the President, as many students of hers have said is the case, then of course she would be willing to step up for the Party at this time.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,560
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I was listening to a newsperson on TV today who made two claims that I thought are typical and certain to be used by Sen. Diane Feinstein (Who did not get the endorsement of her own party for re-election and so must pull some sensational rabbit out of her hat before November in order to prove herself to be sufficiently loyal to the Party)--

1. We should trust women to be telling the truth, even if it is just one.

However, the accuser of the Lacrosse team at Duke University was proven to have made it all up. And the woman who accused the fraternity at the University of Virginia of raping her was shown to have made it all up, too.

2. What would this woman professor have to gain by lying about Kavanagh?

Well, she is an outspoken leftwing extremist, contributor to the Democratic Party, voluminous contributor of political rhetoric on social media sites, and participant in the anti-Trump Woman's March on Washington last year in which she was one of those who wore a so-called puss* hat. If she is fervent about her political views and opposition to the President, as many students of hers have said is the case, then of course she would be willing to step up for the Party at this time.

So innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply anymore in our country?

I have great empathy for women who have suffered unwanted sexual advances...having experienced some things myself (not rape and not as extreme as what this lady had to go through). But we can't immediately place guilt upon someone according to the laws of our country and it seems that times have changed and now we must believe every accuser or we're heartless? No.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Well I did say punished by not getting the position.
It is not punishment when you fail to get a job. That's just failure. Specifically failure to qualify or failure to be the best choice available.
How do we determine a middle aged man's character by looking at his action as a 17 year old
One way to test character is to ask for truthful answers to questions. Another is to test answers given against facts from other sources. It's fact checking. If he did nothing wrong then answering truthfully should not disqualify but answering evasively and/or untruthfully may be sufficient to disqualify.
whose brain is not fully developed into maturity? A 15 year old girl who can't remember details was pawed at by a teenaged boy. How in the world does that prevent a middle aged man from getting to the supreme court? It shouldn't.
He is not 17 years old now. He can answer questions put to him. Let's see how he does once the facts are gathered and checked and his answers can be tested.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,205
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
The thing is how do you say what is truth when no evidence exists? To say he is lying is assuming she is telling the truth and to say she is is also assuming facts that are not present.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
There is simply NO WAY to determine if what this woman is SUDDENLY charging (after 30+ years and after this judge has been nominated and "vetted" many times before) is correct.


But here's what matters to me:

1. She admits to attending a drunken teen party when she was 15 years old. Hum....
2. She CLAIMS Kavanaugh (then 17 and a minor) ALSO did and ALSO was drunk - although she has NOTHING to support this and he denies it.
3. She saus she went to a private room with him, where the alleged "gropping" happened (which she remembers perfectly, although she was drunk at the time).
4. She CLAIMS there was a boy witness to all this but that doesn't seem to be confirmed, no man has yet stepped forward to say he witnessed this.
5. EVERY Democrat (including Feinstein) voted FOR confirmation of this man as a judge - several times - in previous nominations. He has been vetted by the FBI six times and they found NOTHING.


Now... when a democrat like Bill Clinton finally admits he smoked pot in college ("but I never inhaled" lol) the press laughed it off.... "who cares what he did IN COLLEGE, everyone knows college students do stupid things." When it's a democrat, what is done as a child or as a college student is just disregarded due to being stupid. I'm not sure I agree with that but that IS how democrats or liberals are treated. The "double standard" stinks. And I think it stinks that for the Democrats, it's always a sexual charge (juicy, I guess - insures lots of press). They've done the identical thing with Republican nominees several times before (but never as a minor, that's a new low).



And.... I wonder..... if someone CLAIMED (with NOTHING to support it) that YOU did something immoral when you were a child 30+ years ago.... would that prove you TODAY as an adult are therefore an immoral, irresponsible, disqualified, inept person? Even if this is correct, is it valid? When it's a Democrat, it's not.



I suspect this has NOTHING - absolutely nothing - to do with this woman or what may or may not have happened at an illegal drunk teen party 30+ years ago or who may or may not have been there. It's stall. In hopes that the Dems will gain back the senate in November and then can nominate a pro-abortion liberal without any concern about what he or she did when they were a child (or in college). And the press will do all they can to assist. And since, in this uber-sensitive, "Me Too" age, the Republicans are trapped.... they can't bypass this.... it may well work. I suspect they can dig up something that everyone said or did as a teen that seems immature, irresponsible and inapporiate until the Dems nominate someone and then it won't matter.



- Josiah




.
 
Last edited:

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The thing is how do you say what is truth when no evidence exists? To say he is lying is assuming she is telling the truth and to say she is is also assuming facts that are not present.

Sworn testimony is evidence. How reliable memory is and how trustworthy a contested claim made by one person against another is a matter of judgement. But where documents and third parties can give additional evidence then it isn't she said vs he said it becomes they said vs what the other/s said.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
ALL this is pure politics (of the most ugly kind).....

It's all STALL.... in hopes that the Dems will take control of the Senate and then be able to nominate a pro-abortion, liberal, 'the Constitution means nothing" judge - all with the passionate support of the press. In fairness, the Republicans did much the same thing a couple of years ago - although they were "up front" about it, simply placing the nomination on hold.... not with the sex ploy the Dems use in these cases (although they've never before used something done/said by high school kids). IF the Dems stopped and did some THINKING, they'd realize Trump has at least 2 more years as president and isn't going to nominate a radical liberal, pro-abortion judge... this STALL policy by finding irresponsible, immature things said or done when a teenager isn't going to work for 3 years.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
ALL this is pure politics (of the most ugly kind).....
It is about sexual assault. That is not ugly politics. It is a crime in many jurisdictions and if reported immediately it can lead to arrest and trial. It is not right to dismiss a claim because there's a political dispute going on.
It's all STALL.... in hopes that the Dems will take control of the Senate and then be able to nominate a pro-abortion, liberal, 'the Constitution means nothing" judge - all with the passionate support of the press. In fairness, the Republicans did much the same thing a couple of years ago - although they were "up front" about it, simply placing the nomination on hold.... not with the sex ploy the Dems use in these cases (although they've never before used something done/said by high school kids). IF the Dems stopped and did some THINKING, they'd realize Trump has at least 2 more years as president and isn't going to nominate a radical liberal, pro-abortion judge... this STALL policy by finding irresponsible, immature things said or done when a teenager isn't going to work for 3 years.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It is about sexual assault. That is not ugly politics. It is a crime in many jurisdictions and if reported immediately it can lead to arrest and trial. It is not right to dismiss a claim because there's a political dispute going on.

What teens are ACCUSED of doing 30 years later by one person with NO evidence has never been an issue for Democrats before.... not even what college students are alleged (and even admit) to do. And none of this mattered all the times before when Kavanaugh was nominated for judgeships (and Feinstein every time voted for him)... and the accuser (who admits to attending a drunken party when she was 15) never saw fit to mention this for 30+ years...


All this is political STALL, pure and simple. But you are right: In the milieu of "me-too-ism" the ploy may well work since the Republicans cannot simply bypass this and the press will make a HUGE, HUGE deal out of this (whenever the accused is a Republican) - as we've witnessed often before (sex sells papers). I'm sure no Democrat has thought this through to realize Trump will nominate another conservative, pro-lifer and they'll need to find something he or she did as a high schooler than seems immature. Can they do this for at least 3 years until a liberal, pro-abortion president nominates a "Constitution doesn't matter" judge?


Again, none of this mattered in all his previous nominations - ALL of which Feinstein voted to approve; ALL the Democrats did. And not for 30+ years did it seem good for this person to state what she and (she now claims) this other teen did at a drunken party when she was 15.


Again, even if it's true, is it valid? If you applied for a job .... and it was noted you did something immature and irresponsible when you were in high school, would THAT disqualify you by proving you NOW AS AN ADULT 30 YEARS LATER are therefore an immature, irresponsible JERK? Funny, the Democrats shout "NO!" when it's a democrat.....
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,083
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
(CNN)Brett Kavanaugh's accuser now has a name, and the Republican Party's bid to swiftly lift him onto the Supreme Court seems to be spinning out of control.
The emergence of California professor Christine Blasey Ford, and her willingness to testify to Congress about the allegations, unleashed a frenetic sequence of events Monday that threatened to unravel the confirmation process of President Donald Trump's nominee, who had seemed on a smooth glide path to becoming the man to enshrine a conservative majority for a generation.
Democrats demanded that Kavanaugh's confirmation process should be put on hold pending an investigation. A planned vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday on the nomination now appears to be at risk of slipping.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-future-nomination/index.html

Is this going to destroy Kavanaugh's chance at the Supreme Court?

If it was a recent accusation it would be a concern. But it's remarkable how these allegations of sexual assault from decades ago have a habit of emerging right before pivotal moments in the political sphere. If this allegation has already gone unspoken for so many years why is it suddenly coming to light now? If it had been raised as soon as Kavanaugh was proposed as a Supreme Court nominee it would make some sense. But it's not even as if that happened - it waited until right before the confirmation.

The whole thing stinks.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,083
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It is about sexual assault. That is not ugly politics. It is a crime in many jurisdictions and if reported immediately it can lead to arrest and trial. It is not right to dismiss a claim because there's a political dispute going on.

It's about alleged sexual assault. An allegation from so far in the past it's all but impossible to prove one way or the other. After several decades how do we even know whether the activity took place and, if so, whether or not it was consensual? And it's mighty convenient that everybody stayed silent until right now. I wonder why an allegation relating to something decades ago suddenly came to light now. Surely it couldn't be politically motivated.
 

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It is about sexual assault. That is not ugly politics. It is a crime in many jurisdictions and if reported immediately it can lead to arrest and trial. It is not right to dismiss a claim because there's a political dispute going on.

Sen. Feinstein is very good at upsetting apple-carts. This is one instance. In the same way Pres. Trump is a blowhard Republican, Sen. Feinstein (in her own way, such as this) is the same for the Dems. It's a very typical move for her. This professor first wanted to remain anonymous, but at the last hour feels a "civic duty" to come forward. Sen. Feinstein (and other Democrats) had knowledge of this email and its contents since July - something that could have been addressed during the confirmation hearings. Was it? No. The only supposed "gotcha" moment from those hearings was a question about his ruling on a death at 'Seaworld'. The Dems have to try something. It's a cheap shot.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom