Kavanaugh has an accuser

[Josiah]

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.

Bingo....

And this alleged "gropping" took place when the girl was 15 and the boy 17, at a "drunken teen party" the accuser said she attended but the accused claims he did not. This not only was DECADES ago but when they were minors (high school Sophomore and Senior).

And the accuser is an active Democrat, active in the California Democratic Party and a contributor to liberal candidates.

And EVERY DEMOCRAT in the Senate voted to approve his previous count nominations.... and no one accused anyone of immature behavior in high school....

And the FBI has vetting him SIX TIMES and found nothing....

I think this whole thing STINKS of political games.

And again, I wonder.... if Bill Clinton's illegal smoking pot in college, and his sexual assault on a young assistant didn't matter to any Democrat... why does an alleged case of groping among two drunk high schoolers 30 + years ago by one who is now a Republican show he is thus now an immoral, immature, irresponsible adult? If what Roosevelt and Kennedy and Clinton did much later than in high school matters NOT AT ALL, why does what a Republican is ACCUSED of doing (with nothing to support) 30+ years ago as a high schooler matter SO much, above everything. I think this whole thing stinks of double standard.

But I think it likely will work. Whether it will for every nominee for the next 3 years is another matter, but it MAY mean we'll end up with a very disqualified judge who just happens to have no high school accusers of something juicy.



- Josiah

 

[NewCreation435]

the committees vote on Kavanaugh has now been officially cancelled. It appears that this accuser has been invited to testify to the committee.

 

[Josiah]

Turns out Ms. Ford was invited to speak to the Senate Committee (yes, such is always under oath) - and she has refused. Hum....

Turns out the boy Ms. Ford insisted was present at this drunken high school party insists he knows NOTHING about this. Hum...

Turns out Ms. Ford insists the FBI "investigate" her singular baseless accusation of something that she claims happened 36 years ago among two drunken teens, but as she knows, that's a STATE crime where the FBI has no jurisdiction and the FBI isn't interested in what minor teen high schoolers did at drunken parties 36 years ago (they have bigger fish to deal with...and limit their work to FEDERAL crimes). Hum....

Turns out Senator Feinstein has has this letter from Ms. Ford for 4 months AND SAID NOTHING... she had a 2 hour meeting with Kavenaugh and said NOTHING... there were hearings about him weeks ago and she said NOTHING. Hum.....

This really stinks. And IMO, undermines the "Me, too" movement by indicating a clear false, political abuse of a person shouting "me, too."

SHAME on the Democrats (especially Senator Feinstein). SHAME on Ms. Ford.




.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

the committees vote on Kavanaugh has now been officially cancelled. It appears that this accuser has been invited to testify to the committee.

Let's see what develops.

Would it be a bad or a good thing if the FBI did some digging to find out if the accusation is backed up by additional evidence? It looks like something that is part of the background checking for a SCOTUS nominee.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Let's see what develops.

Would it be a bad or a good thing if the FBI did some digging to find out if the accusation is backed up by additional evidence? It looks like something that is part of the background checking for a SCOTUS nominee.

I think this would be for the Judiciary committee to find out at this point (could be wrong, though). Judge Kavanaugh has said he would answer any questions pertaining to this, as has the professor involved.

 

[Albion]

Let's see what develops.

Would it be a bad or a good thing if the FBI did some digging to find out if the accusation is backed up by additional evidence? It looks like something that is part of the background checking for a SCOTUS nominee.

Apparently, the FBI investigates crimes, not partisan hissy-fits, campaign strategies, or he-said-she-said spats.

 

[Albion]

Turns out Ms. Ford was invited to speak to the Senate Committee (yes, such is always under oath) - and she has refused. Hum....

Turns out the boy Ms. Ford insisted was present at this drunken high school party insists he knows NOTHING about this. Hum...

Turns out Ms. Ford insists the FBI "investigate" her singular baseless accusation of something that she claims happened 36 years ago among two drunken teens, but as she knows, that's a STATE crime where the FBI has no jurisdiction and the FBI isn't interested in what minor teen high schoolers did at drunken parties 36 years ago (they have bigger fish to deal with...and limit their work to FEDERAL crimes). Hum....

Turns out Senator Feinstein has has this letter from Ms. Ford for 4 months AND SAID NOTHING... she had a 2 hour meeting with Kavenaugh and said NOTHING... there were hearings about him weeks ago and she said NOTHING. Hum.....

This really stinks. And IMO, undermines the "Me, too" movement by indicating a clear false, political abuse of a person shouting "me, too."

I agree. There is nothing here BUT a very suspicious accusation. Yet already the Democratic Socialist Party apparatus has swung into gear, insisting that if a woman says it, it must be true. It must be true because, well, it isn't easy for a woman to come forth and make these kinds of claims. That's it. Nothing more.

And even that sophomoric attitude cannot be taken seriously since we all know that if any Republican woman attains any level of importance in the political world, she is immediately savaged in no uncertain terms, satirized, destroyed, by the same Democratic Party. The examples of that are almost endless.

 

[tango]

Let's see what develops.

Would it be a bad or a good thing if the FBI did some digging to find out if the accusation is backed up by additional evidence? It looks like something that is part of the background checking for a SCOTUS nominee.

One might presume the FBI would already have done some background checking on a nominee to the Supreme Court.

I'm not sure when the FBI's remit was expanded to include investigating allegations of teenage fumblings over a quarter of a century ago with no evidence and no witnesses. Or, for that matter, allegations that appear to be nothing more than a partisan attempt to derail a candidacy.

 

[Josiah]

I think this would be for the Judiciary committee to find out at this point (could be wrong, though). Judge Kavanaugh has said he would answer any questions pertaining to this, as has the professor involved.

Ms. Ford is REFUSING to testify under oath. She was invited to testify, to present her case in full as she choose, and she has REFUSED.


She is hiding suddenly, dodging. She SAYS she wants the FBI to investigate all this BEFORE she will say anything (what would CHANGE her testimony as a result of the FBI is unclear; she MUST think her testimony is at least faulty and NEEDS investigation). But the allegation is a STATE crime and thus not under the authority of the FBI and in truth, even states are not likely to pursue a CLAIM of groping 36 cyears ago by two drunk high school kids. IMO, this just reveals that her accusation is baseless (and she doesn't want to be guilty of a felony and go to jail) and this is just a STALL tactic... FBI investigations can take years and the Democrats want to stall this until January when they HOPE to gain control of the Senate and HOPE Trump will start nominating uber-liberal, pro-abortion democrats for the Supreme Court. But the BFI isn't going to touch this.... they have no jurisdiction and if she won't even testify under oath that it happened, there's no basis to continue.

And of course, this boy she said was present and could confirm the drunken groping has testified under oath that no such thing happened.

 

[Albion]

The whole game has imploded on the Senate Democrats, hasn't it?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

The whole game has imploded on the Senate Democrats, hasn't it?

Not good in an election year

 

[MoreCoffee]

The news here reports that she agrees to testify. The refusal applies to the proposed schedule starting on Monday 24th-September 2018.

 

[Albion]

I'm sure. The whole point is to delay the vote until after the new Justice can be on the court when it convenes in October and, if possible, until after the November elections..

 

[Lamb]

The whole game has imploded on the Senate Democrats, hasn't it?

I bet they were hoping other women would come forward as well...but that didn't happen :juggle:

 

[MoreCoffee]

I bet they were hoping other women would come forward as well...but that didn't happen :juggle:

Let's see what happens. A week is a long time in politics.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm sure. The whole point is to delay the vote until after the new Justice can be on the court when it convenes in October and, if possible, until after the November elections..

Is it a bad 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?

 

[psalms 91]

sounds familiar, oh yes, it was the Republicans doing that very thing regarding a supreme court nominee

 

[NewCreation435]

Let's see what develops.

Would it be a bad or a good thing if the FBI did some digging to find out if the accusation is backed up by additional evidence? It looks like something that is part of the background checking for a SCOTUS nominee.

He is already a federal employee and as a judge would have already had a background check done. If I have to do one as a therapist, how much more a judge

 

[Josiah]

Is it a bad 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?

... you well realize this has NOTHING to do with anything some drunk teens may or may not have done 36 years ago.


YES, the political game of STALL is not unique to Democrats. However, it seems profoundly stupid in this case. EVEN IF the Dems gain control of the senate in January and can STALL until then, Trump is not THEREFORE going to start nominating uber-liberal, pro-abortion, anti-church Democrat judges. He'll continue to nominate people like the last two. So, they need to play all these made up games, come up with juicey teen sex charges for every nominee for at least another two years - leaving this court position open (and the conservatives in clear majority - the conservatives don't need Kavanaugh) STALLING for at least 2 years - always charging juicey sex stuff for every nominee for over two years - that seems foolish to me, even IF they gain control of the Senate next year and even IF Trump isn't reelected. It's a stupid ploy in this case. They WILL eventually play out this ploy - and a judge just like Kavanaugh will be confirmed because that's what Trump is going to nominate... and these baseless juicey sex stories among teenagers who won't testify under oath and whose only witness insists it's a lie... well, it's not going to work in turn for every nominee they are sent for at least 2 years.




.

 

[Josiah]

The whole game has imploded on the Senate Democrats, hasn't it?

Yup. And I'm sure the "me, too" movement is angered and hindered by this ploy.