Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Uncle Sam

[Merged] Kavanaugh Hearing

991 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

OverSword
14 minutes ago, Princess Bride said:

Actually, testifying under oath is how legal factuality is determined.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Testify+under+oath

Since people seem to not want to believe this woman with a Ph. freaking D., that's why I keep saying the FBI needs to investigate.

Also, there is plenty they are hiding about him. Rumor has it he's a drunk and far from a model citizen. There are rumors he has a gambling problem and miraculously hundreds of thousands of dollars of his debt vanished literally overnight when he got this nomination. There are also allegations of rape against some of his classmate character references coming out also, which sound eerily similar to her account thus far.

Remember, at this point what they say about her is just as true as what they say about him. 

Think it through. They both give testimony under oath which contradicts each other and there are no evidence or witnesses. 

The type of testimony you’re referring to is something like “Yes your honor, the defendant is the man who I saw walk into the bar and open fire on the people who were shot “

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
14 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Think it through. They both give testimony under oath which contradicts each other and there are no evidence or witnesses. 

The type of testimony you’re referring to is something like “Yes your honor, the defendant is the man who I saw walk into the bar and open fire on the people who were shot “

If there were only two purported witnesses and both deny her story and she told no one, an investigation would be short and sweet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Oh, you can do pretty much anything with this grand charade, no more information than has been given. Anyone that doesn't think this isn't pure politics is either partisan or naïve. Every step thus far is calculated and predictable. Every move the Republicans have made has been anticipated and given prepared responses. It's the perfect caper; there's no way to disprove or prove anything. The vagueness of her account, time, date, location is positively delicious. Who's going to come forward and admit to being culpable to contributing to the delinquency of a minor? Who wants their own lives and careers smeared and irreparably tainted by this sordid scandal? I'll hand it to the Democrats; they really did their homework, found the perfect foil, a minor incident to magnify way out of proportion and with a complicit mass media walking with them, lock step. Doesn't even matter if it's true or not--the play's the thing.

Meh my position is that I think both are true. I think the accusation is very possibly true and I think the dems held onto it to use it at the last minute in a piece of dirty politicking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.
38 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

If there were only two purported witnesses and both deny her story and she told no one, an investigation would be short and sweet. 

Yep, unfortunately at this time it's just another case of....

he_said_she_said.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Meh my position is that I think both are true. I think the accusation is very possibly true and I think the dems held onto it to use it at the last minute in a piece of dirty politicking.

 

Nothing last minute about it; a lot of careful thought and planning went into this. An impasse, as Astra so succinctly points out, is exactly what they want. It's the cold-hearted calculation the ruination of a good man is politically justifiable and a likely way to make his confirmation untenable for the Republicans. 

Edited by Hammerclaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, Hammerclaw said:

Nothing last minute about it; a lot of carefully thought and planning went into this. An impasse, as Astra so succinctly points out, is exactly what they want. It's the cold-hearted calculation the ruination of a good man is politically justifiable and a likely way to make his confirmation untenable for the Republicans. 

Thats what i was saying. They had it and held it until the last minute, it was fully calculated.

The good man part seems to be wholly debatable based on who is supporting him but like i said before IDK that the mistakes of our youth should be an automatic disqualifier. I do think that hearing the accuser out and then reexamining his case history with the accusation in mind is in order but I dont think thats too much to ask for for a lifetime appointment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Just now, Farmer77 said:

Thats what i was saying. They had it and held it until the last minute, it was fully calculated.

The good man part seems to be wholly debatable based on who is supporting him but like i said before IDK that the mistakes of our youth should be an automatic disqualifier. I do think that hearing the accuser out and then reexamining his case history with the accusation in mind is in order but I dont think thats too much to ask for for a lifetime appointment.

Oh yes. Maybe they should appoint a special prosecutor to see how many of his friends they can crucify on the altar of political piety. Judged by the same people who were willing to put a known sexual predator back in the White House with his President wife.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Oh yes. Maybe they should appoint a special prosecutor to see how many of his friends they can crucify on the altar of political piety. Judged by the same people who were willing to put a known sexual predator back in the White House with his President wife.

Man did you get a special long episode of Michael Savage tonight? Youre especially wound up !

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Man did you get a special long episode of Michael Savage tonight? Youre especially wound up !

 

Wound up? I'm laughing my head off. I predicted this very scenario here in the forums, it was such an obvious tactic, considering how many of their own they have thus far ruined this way. They seem oblivious of the danger of alienating their male constituency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Wound up? I'm laughing my head off. I predicted this very scenario here in the forums, it was such an obvious tactic, considering how many of their own they have thus far ruined this way. They seem oblivious of the danger of alienating their male constituency. 

In a normal political environment you may have a point about alienating their male constituency. In Trumpworld however if you're not already on board with the ignorance, incompetence, sexism and xenophobia its pretty unlikely youre going to get there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Just now, Farmer77 said:

In a normal political environment you may have a point about alienating their male constituency. In Trumpworld however if you're not already on board with the ignorance, incompetence, sexism and xenophobia its pretty unlikely youre going to get there.

 

It just takes a few percentage points--not all liberal men are Soy Boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, Hammerclaw said:

It just takes a few percentage points--not all liberal men are Soy Boys.

I think the difference in the voting habits has much more to do with education than diet :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

I think the difference in the voting habits has much more to do with education than diet :tu:

Yeah, smart enough to make an informed decision and look at the information they're being force-fed. We'll see. It won't be long now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wickian
5 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

I think the difference in the voting habits has much more to do with education than diet :tu:

So what you're saying most individuals above or below a certain "educated" threshold vote liberal, and most of the rest vote conservative?  Talk about ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
9 hours ago, Princess Bride said:

That's why I keep saying the FBI needs to investigate. They've done this sort of investigation before and are good at it.

I have some questions though, why should she go to prison? Supposedly less than 1% of men that actually rape go to prison. Most men that commit sexual assaults never have to face charges. The ones that do usually only get a slap on the wrist such as a year or less in jail, credit for any time served, and maybe probation. They normally don't have to pay restitution or do community service. So once again why should she have to pay so heavy if some men decide she lied to them? Why are women that are victims of sex crimes treated so harshly and the penalties for committing those crimes against them generally so light? How would anyone actually prove she lied without an FBI investigation? Mind you, she brought this up many times over the years to her husband and six years ago to her therapist, which indicates her truthfulness, imo. So why is this man and his family so much more important than every woman in America? It's not just the women in America on the line, it's America it's self that rests in the balance. 

All these suggested threats against her "for lying" by Republicans all over the internet right now are obviously going to be intimidating and have a chilling effect on her ability to cooperate. It must be very frightening for her.

Opinion: Lying to Congress — Harm, But No Foul

McConnell let Cabinet nominees get away with it

https://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/mitch-mcconnell-congress-lying

You're right, she won't if they decide she lied.

However, the penalty for lying to the feds is 5 years in prison on the rare occasion they pursue such charges, That is the actual legally enumerated punishment for perjury to a Senate committee. 

https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2017/03/what-are-the-penalties-for-lying-to-congress.html

This is what the consequences could b for persecuting women that speak out about rape that some may want silenced.

https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story

I have more articles like those but I don't think anyone here really wants to read them. 

I'm pretty sure some of the people right on this thread want it that way to boot.

 

I think that if she testifies, and it can be definitively proved she lied under oath, then she should pay the price for that. Mainly to stop this seemingly new trend of accusations for the sole purpose of either politics or revenge. 

Should women who have experienced actual sexual harassment or abuse feel comfortable coming forward?  Absolutely! But I think this new trend of using accusations to get what you want is doing more to harm and dishonor those with actual claims than anything else. Pretty soon it's going to minimize and "cry wolf" claims so that abused women will stop coming forward.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
9 hours ago, Princess Bride said:

Actually what she described was a sexual assault. There are lots of legal sexual assaults that fall short of completed rape. 

He held her down, felt her all over, tried to remove her clothes, and covered her mouth so she couldn't scream or breath. That is a sexual assault and would be terrifying.

From what I've seen by professionals on tv it's not. He jumped on top of her, wriggled around, his friend jumped on top of them both while they laughed and supposedly he covered her mouth. She thinks he grabbed at her clothing in an effort to remove it but admitted he never grabbed any of her "parts", allegedly. I experienced worse during my summers at the "Y" pool with teenage boys every year until high school graduation which I'm sure they would describe as "horseplay". Should I go back now,  sue them, ruin their lives and traumatize their wives and children? They were dumba$$ hormonal teenage boys who certainly know better by now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
9 hours ago, Princess Bride said:

Sexual harassment wasn't okay either.

You're right, it wasn't okay but I learned how to deal with it and make it stop on my own, without personnel who would have told me, at the time, to do exactly that. Made me a stronger person and taught me valuable lessons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wickian

Well some new information on Ford's lawyer's demands before she is willing to testify have been reported on. 

I'm not too happy with the source, but it's the best bullet list of the requests in a quick google search.

Quote

Here are the other items Ford requested:

  • Wants to testify second and Kavanaugh to appear first;
  • Doesn’t want Kavanaugh in the room at the same time with her;
  • Prefers not to be questioned by outside counsel, but rather by the senators on the committee;
  • Would like the committee to subpoena Mark Judge, the other student Ford alleges to be in the room at the time of the assault, to testify;
  • Says each senator should have equal time questioning (already committee practice);
  • No time limit on her opening statement; and
  • Will appear at a public hearing but she would like to limit the number of cameras to pool coverage.

I'm unsure about the legalities of not allowing him to hear his accuser since this isn't a criminal case.  Why specifically ask for lawyers or legal aides(outside counsel) to not question her if she has her own legal aid?  Why does Kavanaugh need to speak first when she is the accuser?  Nothing really iffy about any of the other requests.

Also she wants it on Thursday, not Monday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
10 hours ago, Astra. said:

Yep, unfortunately at this time it's just another case of....

What's unfortunate?  Worst case scenario, suppose this incident did happen.  You have a case of a teenager with out of control hormones not raping anyone at the age of fifteen and then by all accounts living an exemplary life.  So obviously you feel he is a poor choice for the supreme court.  Why?  Honestly I want to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
2 hours ago, Wickian said:

So what you're saying most individuals above or below a certain "educated" threshold vote liberal, and most of the rest vote conservative?  Talk about ignorance.

Replace the word educated with "propagandized" and the nail is hit on the head.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
32 minutes ago, Wickian said:

Wants to testify second and Kavanaugh to appear first;

How can anyone respond to accusations before they've been formally presented?  Set up this way, he would be addressing only the rumors that have been flying around, allowing her to weave her official version around any denials he makes.  It may not be a trial but it's still a hearing in a room full of lawyers and I can't see them all agreeing to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
38 minutes ago, Wickian said:

  Why does Kavanaugh need to speak first when she is the accuser?  Nothing really iffy about any of the other requests.

 

She could be holding some "Gotcha" evidence the media/public hasn't heard about yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
11 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Thats what i was saying. They had it and held it until the last minute, it was fully calculated.

The good man part seems to be wholly debatable based on who is supporting him but like i said before IDK that the mistakes of our youth should be an automatic disqualifier. I do think that hearing the accuser out and then reexamining his case history with the accusation in mind is in order but I dont think thats too much to ask for for a lifetime appointment.

Eh. I somewhat agree with you on this, BUT I believe attempted rape and/or sexual assault should certainly disqualify you from holding such a powerful position no matter how old you were when you did it.

With that being said, there is no way to prove this accusation. So, he will be confirmed. He will get his chance to further ruin our country and will probably be a deciding factor when it comes time to save the dear leaders bacon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
3 hours ago, Big Jim said:

How can anyone respond to accusations before they've been formally presented?  Set up this way, he would be addressing only the rumors that have been flying around, allowing her to weave her official version around any denials he makes.  It may not be a trial but it's still a hearing in a room full of lawyers and I can't see them all agreeing to this.

And consequently he could do the same if she goes first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
8 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

And consequently he could do the same if she goes first.

The person bringing the charges always goes first.  To have it otherwise would be like a professor handing you a blank sheet for your final exam, telling you to provide the answers and he'll fill in the questions later.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.