The accuser's own attorney called what supposedly happened an "attempted sexual assault". So you can just shut the hell up about this rape crap. In fact, is attempted sexual assault even a crime? I've never heard of that.
Kavanaugh
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
He was part of the Clinton administration which precludes him from being able to discuss possible sex accusations.
Um - Ford wasn't raped. In her own words, she thinks some high school kid unsuccessfully tried to take off her bathing suit. You're literally the only person discussing this issue using the word rape.
Another thing. We keep talking about whether Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty -- whether he is receiving the sort of legal protections we afford a criminal defendant. But this is more like a job interview than a criminal trial. Yes, by all means let's be fair to everyone, but the question here isn't whether Kavanaugh should be convicted of a crime, but whether he should be elevated to the Supreme Court. Surely there's someone on the Federalist Society list who can't plausibly be accused of sexual assault?
Also, who doesn't understand that the next nominee would come from the Federalist Society list? This isn't about whether Trump will appoint a neanderthal. It's only about which neanderthal goes on the Court. Why is it so imperative that this one be railroaded through?
Also, who doesn't understand that the next nominee would come from the Federalist Society list? This isn't about whether Trump will appoint a neanderthal. It's only about which neanderthal goes on the Court. Why is it so imperative that this one be railroaded through?
Sounds like someone trying to delay the nomination of a judge she doesn't want confirmed.
I'm just going to guess that by now this has little to do with Dr. Ford anymore. Regardless of her intentions when she first came forward with this, I don't think she's making the decisions anymore. It's in the hands of lawyers and political players on both sides. Dr. Ford is likely sitting in the corner being told to shut up (figuratively) while the Big Kids calculate strategy.
So no, I doubt that Dr. Ford is the one driving for an FBI investigation. It's simply what the team has decided is the best tactic to take.
Again, none of this suggests guilt or truth. I don't think it's about that for any of these players.
Even you're smart enough to know that this reeks of 11th hour attempt to delay the confirmation, right?
If a woman is raped...that is what god intended..says former GOP senate nominee Mr.Mourdock...sort of sums up the view of, unfortunately, a nice percentage of male right wingers who quote the invisible man.
Ford alleges that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her. That's why (she alleges) he pulled her into the room. That's why (she alleges) he threw her onto a bed. That's why (she alleges) he tried to get her clothes off. That's why (she alleges) he put his hand over her mouth.
I've been avoiding the word rape to avoid further triggering the unhinged conservative men who are polluting this thread with their hateful posts. But the allegation is that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her. That's what this is about.
If the accusation came from someone that couldn’t remember the year, where, how they got there, how they got home, the answer is no.
Nope. Why don't you piss off back to the Purdue board? We'll let you know if we run short on morons over here.
You've graduated from amusing little troll to hateful little shit.
Ford and her lawyers are clearly working with and for the Democrats. All they've tried to do is delay, delay, and delay some more the Kavanaugh vote. They'd love to push it past the midterms so Donnelly, Heitkamp, McKaskill, etc... don't have to make a tough vote before Election Day. Then if the Dems win the Senate, Shumer will scream "a lame duck Senate shouldn't vote on this nominee. Wait until the new Congress." This is all a game being played.
That's odd because I was watching CNN this morning with two left wing attorneys discussing the allegations and they said what she's alleging is a misdemeanor at best. Literally no one is using the word except you and zeke4ahs.
So anything a political candidate says can be attributed to "a nice percentage" of that person's political party? Is that really where you want to go with this?
To be fair to Kavanaugh, if as he claims this entire incident never occurred, then it's not fair for him to be denied a vote. He deserves a full and impartial investigation conducted by professionals.
The tell that this is all just shit you're making up is the word "clearly" in your first sentence. That's the hardest working word in your post.
You mean like what happens when a 5 year old is raped? What about a 25 year old who is drugged by their rapist? Just throw it out? Wow.
Who's denying him that? Thus far, it's Republicans who oppose an investigation.
If we could all be the know it all hateful dick you are.
I don't know it all, stoll. But I've got your number. That's an easy one.
It's obvious at this point that the republican party is not interested in discovering the facts of this incident. I don't know why, but that's the reality. Why would anyone be opposed to a short investigation conducted by professionals? If Kavanaugh is completely innocent, he could still be voted on before January. I say raise the stakes, and if it's determined that one party is lying they be charged with something.
Her only supposed eyewitness says it didn't happen and that Kavanaugh never did anything to anyone like she describes. There is no crime scene, no witnesses, no evidence, there's literally nothing to investigate. Its her word vs. his.
Personal attacks huh? Kinda fitting the MO of those you are criticizing in this thread aren’t you? Everyone has an opinion on this subject. Simply because you do not like his position doesn’t make him a moron.... it kinda makes you one for trying to shut him up.
No, Sir. Wrong (or lying) again. This matter was sent to the FBI and TWICE they said they wouldn't investigate it as they have no jurisdiction over the offense alleged. You're a lawyer. Surely you know that when the event reportedly occurred, the male person in the event was a juvenile and adult jurisdiction didn't attach. At some time in the last 35 years a local juvenile action might have survived the statute of limitations.
But like liberals we see every day, you folks just want to bend the law to meet your leftist political intentions. You're just wrong. Oh, and the FBI has twice denied getting involved because they know there is no federal jurisdiction
Now Ladoga, Rock’s gonna tell you they have jurisdiction to do another background check. Problem is they don’t know where or when to look.
I bet wiseman Rock has your number too.
You made your comment in a reply to me. If you meant to make it in response to something Goat said, reply to his post.
That is what I'd tell him. The FBI did the initial background check, and if the White House asked it to, it would investigate this as well. The White House hasn't done so, because the White House doesn't want an investigation. That's why the FBI isn't investigating. Not because it couldn't or can't. But because Republicans don't want an investigation.
You say there's nothing to investigate. That's wrong too. But if there's little to investigate, it won't take long, so what's the worry? Why don't we find out what facts can be determined?
Well, since he said it, apparently he thought it would work with the right wing nut-jobs, and it did on some level, as he still garnered a large percentage of the vote, correct?
Thankfully, it was so incredibly stupid it did turn off those with a working brain and they took a pass. So, yes, there is a strong percentage of GOP-ers who identified with that nut job.
BTW, all you have to do is look to the idiots who are still behind this moron of a president...you know the one who brags about assaulting women..isn't that a fairly large percentage as well? SO yeah, I think I am on solid ground. Can you refute that? Then there is also that percentage who think the invisible man directly sent us this orange glutton of a con-man specifically...scary indeed.
Among other things, they might seek to determine the year and the place. Perhaps they can be derived from facts Ford does remember -- or from others who were present at the party. It's the unknowns, after all, that we'd want to be investigated. That's why you investigate. To make unknowns known.
Also, you call it "the groping." That's an oddly charitable description of the attempted rape that Ford alleges. It's almost as though you're too emotionally triggered to engage on the actual merits. Maybe you need a safe space to calm down.
As to the year, as a pre-teen a semi crossed the center line and hit our car. My mother was killed, my father critically injured, and I suffered a pretty serious concussion and a head injury. I can't tell you which year that was. I can tell you where it was, in large part because about 10 years later Landon Turner had a wreck in the exact same spot. I know some of you believe every human has an eidetic memory. Sadly, most of us do not. I'm not shocked she can't remember those details (assuming she is telling the truth which is tbd). If it all happened, the brain may well not remember the associative events because the bright light of the event itself makes everything else fade into the dark. I've heard a lot of combat veterans say things like "I don't remember how I made it back to our lines". It happens. It certainly doesn't help her point to not remember, but it is a far cry from proof it is made up.
I know all’s fair in politics so they should investigate past the elections. Dems win senate and then “Garland” Kavanaugh. That’s all this is about. The republicans then wait to get even. Back and forth we go.
You’re correct and that may be the case here. It may also be the case that what she’s remembering was someone else. What’s the solution? Withdraw Kavanaugh and ruin his life with something he says didn’t happen. He’s been a terrible person his whole life.
There’s no 35 some year ago investigation going to change anyone’s mind.
Even you are smart enough to know that a serious charge deserves investigation, right? What evidence do you personally have that this was made up? A polygraph is not at all definitive, but it means there is a probability she either 1) has no morals against lying or 2) she believes what she says is accurate. Now, she can believe what she said is accurate and still misremember who was involved.
From a group of people who spent years arguing about a birth certificate and blaming the Clintons for murdering Vince Foster and running drugs, doesn't this seem like a strange place to draw a line in the sand that she needed overwhelming proof to come forward? If she doesn't testify Monday I suspect the committee will hold the vote early next week and there has been less than a week's delay. I think the republic will survive that.
Similar threads
