Kavanaugh has an accuser

[psalms 91]

They were both MINORS.

And this was 36 years ago.

And Ms. Ford claims to have been 15 and at a "drunken teen party."

And Ms. Ford claims there was (just one) witness to all of this, but said witness insists NO SUCH THING happened and that she has made it up.

And Ms. Ford seems VERY hesitant to testify under oath.... or to be questioned by anyone who ALREADY doens't 100% agree with her and believe her.... or to have anything she accuses be accountable....

And Ms. Ford is a Democrat Party activist and passionately anti-Trump.

And NO ONE ELSE on the Planet Earth notes any such behavior from Mr. Kavanaugh - at drunk parties as a teenager or otherwise.


And I remind you that President Clinton (although I realize he's a Democrat) was accused by SEVERAL women of MUCH worse.... and finally admitting to a felony, ADMITTED to a crime AS AN ADULT, only a matter of MONTHS earlier, to much worse.... and did he resign? Did anyone insist he was thereby disqualified for an even higher office than Supreme Court judge? And who threw every one of those accusers under the bus, insisting they would not be heard or considered? Yup, the very same lady now insisting Ms. Ford has got to be right and Kavanaugh must not be confirmed (Bill's wife). Stinks, doesn't it?


Now, Bill.... let me ask you. If YOU were nominated for an important job for which you are highly qualified, what would you make of this? Would this PROVE you, Bill, are an immature, irresponsible, pervert and obviously unqualified for this job (or any?) Have YOU ever applied for a job? How would you feel about some drunk high school girl from 36 years ago suddenly - at the last moment - claiming this? A person SO angry at the one who nominated you?

I am on your side in this one, I asked and because it seemed MC was bringing this up to make it more than what it is. Personally I think it is all a big to do about nothing

 

[Lamb]

So far all witnesses that were named by Ford do not back up her claim. I'm not saying something didn't happen.

We need to teach girls to be vocal immediately...not wait to accuse.

 

[tango]

In fairness, back in the early 80s it wasn't necessarily the done thing to speak up.

The trouble is it's very hard to take the claims seriously now. From what I can see this woman has declined to file a police report, declined to testify before the Senate, wants the FBI to investigate a decades-old crime that isn't even a federal crime and for which the statute of limitations has long since passed, and wants everything regarding the Supreme Court nomination to wait until she says it's OK to press forward.

Who should go about investigating an allegation relating to something that happened nearly 40 years ago when a police report hasn't even been filed?

I can't help thinking she should get a chance to testify under oath and if she declines then ignore the allegations and press forward with the confirmation. The whole thing already looks like it's little more than a stalling tactic, so maybe this is the time she needs to put up or shut up.

 

[Lamb]

The more I read the more I'm inclined to believe she's a complete control freak. She wanted Kavanaugh to speak first and then she'd get her turn...but that's not how our system works. The accused gets to defend himself.

 

[Albion]

...and what would he say if he were to go first? She is the one who made up the story. He can hardly be expected to guess at what she would be intending to allege during her remarks to the Senators. And as I understand it, the letter she is supposed to have sent to Senator Feinstein has not been revealed to the Judiciary committee. All that is known is the basic claim as reported by the media.

 

[tango]

...and what would he say if he were to go first? She is the one who made up the story. He can hardly be expected to guess at what she would be intending to allege during her remarks to the Senators. And as I understand it, the letter she is supposed to have sent to Senator Feinstein has not been revealed to the Judiciary committee. All that is known is the basic claim as reported by the media.

One has to wonder why she would approach a hard-left Democrat Senator with a criminal allegation rather than, oh, maybe the police?

 

[Albion]

If we want to give her every benefit of doubt, there probably is an answer to that. She is a resident of California, so both of her own Senators are Democrats who are known for putting party above everything else.

OTOH, I see no way around the fact that she has chosen as her advisors high-level Democrat Party lawyers and strategists who are veterans of earlier political fights against the Republicans.

That shows me, right there, that suspicions of her claims being fabricated for a partisan purpose are almost certainly justified.

 

[NewCreation435]

Dr.Ford has now agreed to testify on Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/23/politics/christine-blasey-ford-senate/index.html

 

[MoreCoffee]

Seems that he has a second accuser.

In 1983/4 academic year at Yale it is alleged that he engaged in sexual misconduct.

The allegation is from a 53 year old woman.

She would have been 18 or maybe 19 at the time of the event in the allegation.

The allegation involves exposing himself at a party.

 

[NewCreation435]

Seems that he has a second accuser.

In 1983/4 academic year at Yale it is alleged that he engaged in sexual misconduct.

The allegation is from a 53 year old woman.

She would have been 18 or maybe 19 at the time of the event in the allegation.

The allegation involves exposing himself at a party.

Yes, her name is Deborah Ramirez and it was about a year after the accusation that Dr.Ford is making. This isn't looking very good for Kavanaugh

 

[Lamb]

Yes, her name is Deborah Ramirez and it was about a year after the accusation that Dr.Ford is making. This isn't looking very good for Kavanaugh

She's another one who was drunk and can't remember clearly (she admits this).

 

[Albion]

Its all so predictable, isn't it? In fact, I did predict the course of events in a previous post. Its not that hard to do. From here on out, the Dems will mainly rely on their allies in the media to argue that we cannot take any chances on this nominee, that women will not lie in this situation (even those who, after decades of silence go at just the right time to Democrat Party lawyers and advisors for their expertise, not other experts), and that it is not necessary to prove that Kavanaugh did anything wrong.

 

[psalms 91]

So far no proof not even a person that can remember him beuing there in this latest. I feel this is nothing but a smear campaign and I resent it as it makes all those with legitimate claims appear not truthful and in some cases may make someone more liable to not come forward

 

[Albion]

I think it is a good thing to delay until the voting public can voice its opinions on who should be in the house and in the senate making decision about matters of law and who is appointed to the scotus.

Reward the wrongdoers with exactly what they are after, in other words.

 

[Albion]

The more I read the more I'm inclined to believe she's a complete control freak. She wanted Kavanaugh to speak first and then she'd get her turn...but that's not how our system works. The accused gets to defend himself.

That's a rather transparent admission on the part of her handlers that she will say whatever is necessary. If her story were true, they would not have demanded this illogical format.

 

[Albion]

Dr.Ford has now agreed to testify on Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/23/politics/christine-blasey-ford-senate/index.html

Which, in itself, is a strong piece of evidence that the plan was purely political. Thursday, as has been widely reported, is the day that would most likely imperil the scheduling of the vote on the nomination. Tuesday wouldn't do. Nor would Wednesday.

Reading through these posts, I am struck by how many talk as though the incident might actually have happened. I mean, why argue that both were minors or that it was a long time ago unless it actually occurred??

And has everyone been asleep for the past two years? We have one political party that has vowed, in public, to overthrow the government. They even have cute slogans, rallies, and more that are meant to publicize that objective! And now we cannot even recognize this molestation allegation as part of the plan??

 

[tango]

Which, in itself, is a strong piece of evidence that the plan was purely political. Thursday, as has been widely reported, is the day that would most likely imperil the scheduling of the vote on the nomination. Tuesday wouldn't do. Nor would Wednesday.

Reading through these posts, I am struck by how many talk as though the incident might actually have happened. I mean, why argue that both were minors or that it was a long time ago unless it actually occurred??

And has everyone been asleep for the past two years? We have one political party that has vowed, in public, to overthrow the government. They even have cute slogans, rallies, and more that are meant to publicize that objective! And now we cannot even recognize this molestation allegation as part of the plan??

I think the issue of the two being minors is relevant insofar as it's highly doubtful whether the event took place at all, but even if it did it's hard to see why it should be regarded as relevant now. If going through teenage years without doing anything that someone might have regarded as inappropriate, especially given the standard for "inappropriate" is so different now than it was then, is a requirement for high office then we might as well disband government completely because nobody is fit for the job.

On second thoughts, that might not be such a bad idea after all. I wonder if Sen. Feinstein has any skeletons in her closet from 40 years ago that she'd like the public to know about.

 

[Josiah]

Yet, another....


Well.... with Ms. Ford's accusation looking more and more suspicious.... and now that we're past the 11th hour... another Democrat Party activist has come forward with an echo.... it seems she TOO attended drunken teen parties as a minor... and while she admits to being extremely drunk (and admits her memory is thus very fuzzy) says there was something inappropriate sexual act (while he too was a minor). And yup, several have come forward to say they were at the party that what she is accusing never happened. The "let's find some juicy sex thing to STALL this" ploy continues. And yup, it again involves drunk teenagers (since no Democrat cared about what the ADULT Bill Clinton did WHILE president and sober IN THE White House to perhaps 8 young women (none teens, none drunk).

And again, she doesn't want to testify under oath..... she doesn't want to testify AT ALL.... she just wants the FBI to investigate a state law, well past the statue of limitations among two minors (something no State could investigate now). In other words, she cares about ONE THING: Stalling the confirmation.


The Democrats have two hopes for this STALL, STALL, STALL approach with these juicy drunk teen sex stories (denied by those there)....

1. The Dems will gain control of the Senate in January 2019. COULD be, although the polls don't support it at this point. But it's always possible. And THUS..,

2. The Dems hope that Trump then will suddenly make a "180" and go back on his campaign promise, and will suddenly start nominating uber-liberal, Democrat, pro-abortion, anti-Church judges that they will like. He will entirely stop nominating the Constitutional and Republican candidates that he has so for. I find this hope quite unlikely. IMO, it is more likely he will keep sending men like he has... and the Dems will have to keep coming forward with Democrat Party activiites charging juicy sex stories from drunken, illegal teen parties that they supposedly attended (no matter if anyone can be found to confirm it, no matter if everyone says it never happened because everyone pays attention to sex stories - especially among drunk teens ). And if Trump gets reelected, they have to do this for 6 YEARS and untold number of nominees (I wonder if the public will get tired of this ploy? No, probably not).



Stinks.



.

 

[psalms 91]

I think there should be an investigation with the understanding that if false or cant be proven that they themselves will be charged and sued for defamation

 

[Josiah]

I think there should be an investigation with the understanding that if false or cant be proven that they themselves will be charged and sued for defamation

1. Hard to do.... all this happened 35 or 36 years ago, among TEENS (minors)... I don't think it's POSSIBLE to know if it's true or not, and in these cases, there is no de facto innocent presumption, and it's just not POSSIBLE for a man to PROVE what a drunk teen girl CLAIMS (with not one witness confirming but all denying) is true or not. Of course, all the Dems (most of all Hilary Clinton) insisted that women make this stuff up and that all 8 women who accused then adult, sober, president Clinton of stuff was to be dismissed (in spite of her husbands felony in this regard) - and the Dem senators all voted to dismiss it and not investigate. BUT he was only a President (not a court nominee) and he was an ADULT (not a teenager) and it was months earlier (not over 3 decades earlier) and no one was admittedly very drunk - so of course, the Democrats to a person all decided it was to be ignored and not investigated.


2. The whole purpose is CLEARLY to stall..... It seems neither will testify under oath (setting themselves up for a possible felony - they learned that from Bill Clinton) but both of these Democrat Party activist coming up PAST THE LAST MINUTE when it seemed this Republican judge would be confirmed) with their juicy teen drunk sex stories (all denied by so called witnesses) would STALL. Why? In hopes that the Democrats will control the Senate next January (although the polls indicate that's unlikely) and THEREFORE Trump will go back on his campaign promise and will only nominate uber-liberal, Democrat, pro-abortion nominatees - whose sex life will matter as much as Bill Clintons (not at all) and they will confirm.



- Josiah