Kavanaugh
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
Interesting article and they raise some valid points, but I always chuckle at prosecutors. They are hammers and every possible defendant is a nail.
For someone who seems to be fixated on this "party," please answer this: how many people were at the party?
Seriously. What kind of party has only three attendees (Ford, Judge and Kavanaugh)? Those are the only ones we've heard about, right? Do any of your sources identify anybody else who attended this party?
To me, this may be the first tiebreaker. This is why I think the FBI should be the investigators (they're pretty good at these little details).
There it is...the classic sliming of the accuser. I can only assume that you and your upstanding buddies consider Ford as being in on the "hit job".
By golf, did you mean...
They do not want an investigation. They want to delay and destroy the nomination. They know there won't be a federal investigation. The FBI has said no twice. Your "friend" is giving you bad information.
Plus, why wouldn't she make up other details if she's busy making it all up? Isn't the art of lying all about embellishing tall tales?
There it is...the classic sliming of the accuser. I can only assume that you and your upstanding buddies consider Ford as being in on the "hit job".
By golf, did you mean...
I am sliming the scum of the scum democratic politicians that are pulling off this political hit job. They’re the scum that outted the accuser who requested to remain anonymous.
Your earlier link said outright false accusations in sex assault cases were from 2-10 %. That is extraordinarily high, not "rare" or "well under" anything. What other crimes involve false accusations ranging from 2-10%? That's a crazy percentage.
There are no good answers here, but you shouldn't be so dismissive of false accusations. It makes you look like you're saying that men should automatically pay the price regardless. The truth is that everybody's life "will be shamed" and everybody's "life [will be] dissected, etc.", not just a female accuser's.
Well, one would think that, but if the GOP won't let the F fricking BI investigate it, what makes you think the GOP would let a "liberal, left wing wacko Hollywood type" like Columbo investigate it?Columbo would have this one solved in minutes.
The GOP is really scared of something.
No, as I’ve repeatedly said. There is plenty of time to have an investigation and a hearing and a vote. Probably in a week’s time. You can say they don’t care, and maybe they don’t. But they at least give the appearance of caring. The GOP. If they refuse an investigation, can’t even pretend to care about the truth.
I’m not being dismissive . Just playing the odds. And anyone that lies about this type of thing should be punished to the fullest extent. If you’ve read what I’ve been posting all along here, I’m. It sure where you get that I think men should pay the price regardless. I’m saying that women are most often the victim. And it’s not enough that they are the victim. Then they get their sex life, their drinking history, everything under a microscope, and often get shamed on campus or where’ve they happen to be. A false accusation for males can do the same for them. But at the best odds, this happens to the victim 90% and the accused10%. So the majority of my empathy is in that direction.
I think she said there were two other people. A guy named Smythe who has denied .
You’re a very bitter woman, you must have a story to tell and it’s not about your girls.
Ladoga said: ↑
The background investigation - you evidently don't know what a background investigation is - is complete because, the FBI, having added the letter to the file say it is complete. Were you ever the subject of a background investigation? If so and if you paid any attention, you know that it is the gathering of information about your "background" as far back as information can be gleaned (they questioned my first grade teacher among dozens of other people when I was 20 years old - went to her house and knocked on her door to interview her about me). They seek information which may raise questions about matters effecting the subject of the background investigation - in my case a Top Secret/ESI/SIOP security clearance. There is no hearing, no adjudication, just a gathering of information and a decision regarding my (or yours if applicable) fitness and the appropriateness of giving me the clearance. Brett Kavanaugh has undergone 6 of such background investigations and not one scintilla of derogatory or disqualifying information has come to light which is valid and true - including in this investigation.
It's not a great point, and neither one of you has even mentioned a single thing that isn't widely known. In fact you both just totally ignored the point I made...
I have NO DOUBT that during these 6 background checks the FBI questioned/ interviewed many of Kavanaugh's classmates and fellow students from Georgetown Prep. No doubt they interviewed many friends of his, his family, and other peers and classmates he encountered as he pursued undergrad, law degrees and beyond. I've had background checks and I know they contact former teachers, professors etc... No idea why you thought that was some point of enlightenment that the rest of us are unaware of...
I went to a very large school (Ben Davis) and there is absolutely no doubt that the FBI would contact friends I went to school with. But it's much less likely that they would interview students from other schools like Decatur Central or Avon UNLESS one of my friends mentioned that I went to parties with students from those schools. The FBI would not just interview students from a school I didn't go to on their own, unless someone suggested to them that there was a connection there they needed to investigate...
There would have been no reason for the FBI to travel to Palo Alto to interview Mrs Ford, and she would likely have never even been aware when a background check was being conducted. In fact there are probably no former students from Holton-Arms that have been interviewed at any point of FBI investigations into Kavanaugh. Which means no one who might be privy to the events Ford has described would ever have been interviewed by the FBI- since Judge was not going to incriminate himself. For that reason alone, the FBI should conduct an investigation/questioning of people who went to school with Ford.
The background investigation - you evidently don't know what a background investigation is - is complete because, the FBI, having added the letter to the file say it is complete. Were you ever the subject of a background investigation? If so and if you paid any attention, you know that it is the gathering of information about your "background" as far back as information can be gleaned (they questioned my first grade teacher among dozens of other people when I was 20 years old - went to her house and knocked on her door to interview her about me). They seek information which may raise questions about matters effecting the subject of the background investigation - in my case a Top Secret/ESI/SIOP security clearance. There is no hearing, no adjudication, just a gathering of information and a decision regarding my (or yours if applicable) fitness and the appropriateness of giving me the clearance. Brett Kavanaugh has undergone 6 of such background investigations and not one scintilla of derogatory or disqualifying information has come to light which is valid and true - including in this investigation.
It's not a great point, and neither one of you has even mentioned a single thing that isn't widely known. In fact you both just totally ignored the point I made...
I have NO DOUBT that during these 6 background checks the FBI questioned/ interviewed many of Kavanaugh's classmates and fellow students from Georgetown Prep. No doubt they interviewed many friends of his, his family, and other peers and classmates he encountered as he pursued undergrad, law degrees and beyond. I've had background checks and I know they contact former teachers, professors etc... No idea why you thought that was some point of enlightenment that the rest of us are unaware of...
I went to a very large school (Ben Davis) and there is absolutely no doubt that the FBI would contact friends I went to school with. But it's much less likely that they would interview students from other schools like Decatur Central or Avon UNLESS one of my friends mentioned that I went to parties with students from those schools. The FBI would not just interview students from a school I didn't go to on their own, unless someone suggested to them that there was a connection there they needed to investigate...
There would have been no reason for the FBI to travel to Palo Alto to interview Mrs Ford, and she would likely have never even been aware when a background check was being conducted. In fact there are probably no former students from Holton-Arms that have been interviewed at any point of FBI investigations into Kavanaugh. Which means no one who might be privy to the events Ford has described would ever have been interviewed by the FBI- since Judge was not going to incriminate himself. For that reason alone, the FBI should conduct an investigation/questioning of people who went to school with Ford.
No one is going to pay attention to a "scientist" like you who thinks Brady never even needed a human mother (well, except that he obviously needs Bill Belichick to help him change his intimates).
There is plenty to investigate even if you don't know how to do it. While the exact date may be difficult to determine, a big "party" like this one is said to be was surely attended by someone who would remember that it was a "semester break" party, or a Christmas/ Thanksgiving/ Easter/ graduation party, and that it was in some big white/gray/blue house near or nowhere near the ocean or that it was at Joe's or Fred's or Bill's house on the east/west/north/south side of town. Pursuing such things would make it possible to fill in gaps and narrow the time and location variables.
The FBI knows how to do this despite your inability.
Do you honestly think the FBI would be unable to find other people who attended such a party? That would be laughable, Patriot guy, so please say yes and cheer us all up.
On one hand you guys want to say that the FBI knows how to do these investigations and on the other you question whether they did the prior 6 background checks in an incomplete manner. Which is it?
And again, the FBI are the ones saying they do not need to look into this further. Your experts are saying they are good. The only ones really wanting to do questioning now are the GOP and Kavanaugh. Ford and the Democrats are the ones saying they want no part of that on Monday. Additionally, Congress has it's own investigators. Grassley has offered to send staffers out to Ford in California to take her testimony so she does not have to be a part of the circus. So who again are the ones wanting to avoid moving forward?
Beyond that, her naming Judge indicates that she had a degree of familiarity with both of them, despite both of them trying to claim they don't really know her. In other words she didn't just pull Kavanaugh's name out of a hat, after (presumably) reading one of Judge's books.
She knew these guys despite the fact she didn't go to school with them...
She wants the FBI to investigate. Which could be easily done.
If she’s lying, why would she go to the FBI and lie to them?
And, why would she name K’s good buddy as the only other witness?
Also, why did she submit to (and pass) a polygraph test? And release her intensely private therapy notes?
And, she clearly knew that her life wasn’t going to be the same (remember Anita Hill?). Yet, she went ahead and spoke on the record.
It doesn’t mean she’s 100% spot on in her recollection, but all those things tend to show that she’s being truthful.
And you can be upset with the way the info leaked- I get that it wasn’t ideal.
Also, people are forgetting a few things. She’s an apparent victim of sexual assault- and her actions are very consistent with someone that has endured it. And this isn’t about proof BRD- it’s about the veracity of the judge. And given that he’s flatly denied even being there with her, he’s drawn a clear line in the sand.
There’s no harm in having the FBI interview the apparent victim, K and his buddy. At this point, it would clear his name. If he’s rushed through and either more surfaces on this or even nothing else surfaces, there’s a taint to his nomination. And that’s not fair to anyone, including K.
I don’t think people are thinking clearly about the big picture here. It’s not as if he couldn’t be replaced with another heritage foundation approved judge. There’s no real reason to rush it.
And, if by some miracle the Dems take the senate, they could hold the seat that should’ve been filled by Merrick Garland already.
. This seat should’ve never been open from the start, according to the constitution (the president appointing SC justices is one of the few things actually spelled out in it). Apologies if this stuff has been pointed out before. Just jumped into the thread and didn’t feel like wading through 33 pages of posts
Absolutely there is time for an investigation but that’s not what the Dems want. At least not anytime soon. That’s why they won’t commit on having this woman testify.
It’s partisan horseshit.
This shouldn’t be allowed to gum up the works. Not with what we know now. Of course, if more is revealed, then we can talk.
Right now, all she has is a booze addled memory of something that might not even have been criminal, committed by an equally impaired 17 year old kid, who by the way, has been squeaky clean ever since, without exception.
That’s not enough to stop our government from operating as it should and Lord help us if it is.
You guys seem to all be mixing up a FBI background check with a Federal security clearance investigation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...n-texas/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ad1e300fdced
Here's some unhappy reading. It's got nothing to do with Kavanaugh, but it's an ugly reminder of how the herd responds. The 'faith' thing in this story is surreal and horrifying, not least because of the crude and irrational gratuitousness of it.
On the bolded, are you saying you think the FBI interviewed students from Holton-Arms? And if they did, did they somehow manage to never meet anyone who was aware of the scuttlebutt King posted on facebook about? They obviously never interviewed Mrs Ford..
Last edited:
That’s not at all what the FBI “said”. They would willingly do the further investigation- but the order has to come from the white house.
Where did you get that information? It’s flat out wrong.
A very small contingent of Republicans on this forum seem to have a fetish for attacking women who make claims against conservatives of bad behavior. It can't be any sort of principle they hold, since they gladly attack Democrats who are accused of bad behavior against women. And it can't be any sort of concern for the facts, since we don't actually have the facts. No, all that we know is that a woman has accused a conservative man of attempted rape, and in response, a small handful of posters on this forum have decided this woman is a lying whore.
It's really pretty disgusting, and these men - some of whom claim to be devout followers of Christ, it's worth remembering - should be ashamed of themselves, but I really doubt they any longer have the capacity for shame. They only have the capacity for despicable partisan hackery of the kind that, in a just universe, would damn their shit-covered souls to hell for all eternity.
It's really pretty disgusting, and these men - some of whom claim to be devout followers of Christ, it's worth remembering - should be ashamed of themselves, but I really doubt they any longer have the capacity for shame. They only have the capacity for despicable partisan hackery of the kind that, in a just universe, would damn their shit-covered souls to hell for all eternity.
You're dwelling on a presumed 90% percentage (as you presented it) that something surely happened in all cases in which a woman made an accusation, no matter who made the accusation, or why or when or anything else.
You say you're just playing the odds in biasing your "empathy" in favor of the woman in all such cases, because all the women are examined and "often" shamed but only 10% of the accused males are falsely accused so it's OK to assume that all males are guilty when an accusation is made. That is just statistical rationalization, not justice, because it ignores the 100% probability that lives of everyone involved are going to be smashed if such accusations are not handled with great competence.
I agree with your earlier post saying you thought the FBI should investigate this matter before it goes further in the committee. The FBI has sensitive investigators who can diplomatically question women about such things.
Good article. Ladoga was talking about his TS clearance...I don't believe the FBI does investigations for clearances outside of those in the White House and Senate confirmed individuals. I could be incorrect on that.
Also....I really doubt they would have ever gone back and ever talked with people he went to high school with...unless he listed them on his form. That's just not what they do, or what they are looking for. They are more interested in things that would make one question loyalty to the nation....or something that would make someone vulnerable to foreign influence.
Sensitive FBI Investigator would be my new handle if I were shopping for one.
I don't get why a FBI investigation (that I'm highly doubtful would provide any substantive info, but whatever) is needed as a precursor to Ford testifying (open or closed).
Maybe someone can help me out here....
Maybe someone can help me out here....
Make no mistake -- the FBI also has the other kind of investigators too, you know, the ones that interrogate hardened criminals like Tony Soprano and Paul Mantafort.
It's not. I have no idea what card she (or her lawyer) is playing here, but it's not the card they think it is.
He did hit all the hot button talking points though. It probably took at least a little work.
Similar threads
