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

Gromdor
Just now, Big Jim said:

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.

Think that's why she wanted an FBI investigation.  So the basic facts could be presented by a neutral investigator before hand. As it stands, it is merely, "He said, she said" with the advantage going to the person speaking last.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Think that's why she wanted an FBI investigation.  So the basic facts could be presented by a neutral investigator before hand. As it stands, it is merely, "He said, she said" with the advantage going to the person speaking last.

When did the FBI become neutral?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
Just now, Big Jim said:

When did the FBI become neutral?

Well I suppose to Trump supporters they are all "Deep State" agents secretly managing the US for the globalist Illuminati.  But eh, we can only work with the tools we have.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam
18 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

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.

What matters;

1) Ford also demands that no Lawyers be present. Not only that she not be questioned by them, but they can't even be in the room when she is.

2) Kavenaugh can't be in the room either. So much for your right to confront your accuser.

3) Yes, the defendant goes second, that is how Justice is supposed to work.

So, what we have here is not just an incredibly weak case that is 99% certain to be Bullspit, the Socialist (formerly) Democrat party is attempting to turn this into a Soviet-style Kangaroo Court where the defendant is already mandated to be guilty by fiat, and this part is just to determine his (and Trump's) punishment.

Dems, you all can go to Hell. 

The FBI is being asked to investigate a case of Groping (HER statement) at a time that can't be nailed down at an unknown location to try to nail a guy with no pattern of behavior that would back up this one person's allegation or this one instance. 

I mean, day-um, when you guys say by any means necessary, it seems like every Republican (voters too) should get measured for a bullet-proof vest. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
1 hour ago, Big Jim said:

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.

And the way you suggest doing it is like the professor handing you a final exam, you provide the answers and then he changes the questions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam

Well if neither will be facing the other they should take Kavanaughs statement first. Then they should take her testimony next. Then let the house Democrats compare the notes to see if Kavanaugh is lying and should not be appointed as a Supreme court appointee. See, I can write stupid stuff too.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Think that's why she wanted an FBI investigation.  So the basic facts could be presented by a neutral investigator before hand. As it stands, it is merely, "He said, she said" with the advantage going to the person speaking last.

Wrong.  The advantage goes to the accused when no evidence or third party testimony is involved. 

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

If I was in charge I would probably close this dead horse.  There is no point in beating it anymore until Monday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
35 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

Well if neither will be facing the other they should take Kavanaughs statement first. Then they should take her testimony next. Then let the house Democrats compare the notes to see if Kavanaugh is lying and should not be appointed as a Supreme court appointee. See, I can write stupid stuff too.

So you want Kavanaugh to defend himself against what then? This is like swinging the bat and then the pitcher comes out and throws the ball.  Let's turn 1000 years of legal precedent on its head for a woman who says she was almost raped sometime in the 80s, (she isn't sure when) ate someplace (she can't remember exactly) at a someone's party (she isn't sure who's) and now she wants to hear Kavanaugh defend himself so she can go out and tell whatever story she wants. Sounds fair.  :rolleyes: 

How about she swears an oath  and then clearly spells out what she is accusing this man of doing (it keeps changing) and then have Kavanaugh defend himself against that accusation, you know, kind of like it is done in every court in the free world.  How about some details so he can look back and say I was in this place at that time and no where near that house and here are thirty witnesses to back up that story. 

This is truly the mist bizarre thing the left has ever tried to pull off.  You'd think the woman would remember SOMETHING about that night if she is so traumatized she can't look at the man but nope,not a thing. 

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
10 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

So you want Kavanaugh to defend himself against what then? This is like swinging the bat and then the pitcher comes out and throws the ball.  Let's turn 1000 years of legal precedent on its head for a woman who says she was almost raped sometime in the 80s, (she isn't sure when) ate someplace (she can't remember exactly) at a someone's party (she isn't sure who's) and now she wants to hear Kavanaugh defend himself so she can go out and tell whatever story she wants. Sounds fair.  :rolleyes: 

How about she swears and oath  and then clearly spells out what she is accusing this man of doing (it keeps changing) and then have Kavanaugh defend himself against that accusation , you know, kind of like it is done in every court in the free world.  How about some details so he can look back and say I was in this place at that time and no where near that house and here are thirty witnesses to back up that story.

I was being sarcastic at the way the Democrats want it done. That's why I said "See, I can write stupid stuff too. "

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
2 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

I was being sarcastic at the way the Democrats want it done. That's why I said "See, I can write stupid stuff too. "

 

I was a little confused when I read it so my bad for not recognizing the sarcasm.  I should know better but I'd like to keep you quoted, if that is ok with you, as your post reflects so much of what I heard from the left today .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
12 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I was a little confused when I read it so my bad for not recognizing the sarcasm.  I should know better but I'd like to keep you quoted, if that is ok with you, as your post reflects so much of what I heard from the left today .

No worries, and my quote is fine by me.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss

What she wants is something she can feed off of ....he says ..."Well,  I went to a party that summer at so and so's house but I don't remember miss Ford being there" and she says... "That's it! That was the party!"..... or she knows they will refuse such a ridiculous decision so she refuses to appear therefore avoiding possible perjury charges? 

Share this post


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

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.

Well then the legal penalty for a conviction of perjury to the Senate or Congress is 5 years in prison and that is it. 

 

Why do you think women should feel comfortable going to the authorities if they won't be believed and charged with lying if they aren't? That's rather odd anyone would think that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
1 minute ago, Princess Bride said:

Why do you think women should feel comfortable going to the authorities if they won't be believed and charged with lying if they aren't? That's rather odd anyone would think that

I'm saying in a perfect world women should feel comfortable coming forward....I think it's odd you don't want that. 

I also don't think anyone should be automatically believed based on gender...and as a woman....if you tell me you've never met a woman whom you know would lie in order to get revenge or her way then I'd doubt anything further you have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
12 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.

LMAO Love it......what im talking about is political science and statistical analysis. Its factual that higher educated folks tend to vote more liberal and that played out especially strong in the 2016 election

Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump

Quote

Sometimes statistical analysis is tricky, and sometimes a finding just jumps off the page. Here’s one example of the latter.

I took a list of all 981 U.S. counties1 with 50,000 or more people2 and sorted it by the share of the population3 that had completed at least a four-year college degree. Hillary Clinton improved on President Obama’s 2012 performance in 48 of the country’s 50 most-well-educated counties. And on average, she improved on Obama’s margin of victory in these countries by almost 9 percentage points, even though Obama had done pretty well in them to begin with.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.

Oh, so you saw this on TV. I learned about sexual assault and the legal definitions of it in Criminal Law class. According to what I read he pinned her down and covered her mouth (used force against her), touched her all over her private parts (Groped her), but attempting to remove her clothing would be a sexual attack as well. Covering her mouth would also indicate that she didn't consent. Maybe we'll never know the particles now since the Republican Committee doesn't want to hear her testimony or have an independent investigation for facts. We've been assured by Mitch McConnel that Kavanaugh will be confirmed no matter what. Hopefully, she will testify so we can all hear her, even if her words aren't given any weight by the committee. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault

Definition

Generally, sexual assault is defined as unwanted sexual contact. The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network defines sexual assault as "unwanted sexual contact that stops short of rape or attempted rape. This includes sexual touching and fondling."[4]

The National Center for Victims of Crime states:[5]

Sexual assault takes many forms including attacks such as rape or attempted rape, as well as any unwanted sexual contact or threats. Usually, a sexual assault occurs when someone touches any part of another person's body in a sexual way, even through clothes, without that person's consent.

However, in most states, sexual assault occurs when there is a lack of consent from one of the individuals involved. Consent must take place between two adults who are not incapacitated and can change during any time during the sexual act.

Groping

The term groping is used to define the touching or fondling of another person in a sexual way without the person's consent. Groping may occur under or over clothing.

Post-assault mistreatment of victims

After the assault, victims may become the target of ****-shaming to cyberbullying. In addition, their credibility may be challenged.

 

What Is Sexual Assault (and What Isn't), According to the Law

https://www.self.com/story/sexual-assault-definition

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

What's unfortunate?

I think it's unfortunate that this woman has only now come forward and accused this man of sexual assault some 30+ years ago...when so far her claim looks rather flimsy ie; (another he said..she said scenario) Why did she wait so long to spill the beans..why wasn't this reported decades ago ?..

As I have mentioned previously, I'm feeling 50/50 about this. Is it that she is still very traumatised by this said event...or did she use it more as just a political ploy as to simply slur the mans reputation ?...(which no doubt she already has)..

8 hours ago, OverSword said:

Worst case scenario, suppose this incident did happen.

Quite honestly, I'm wondering what she was doing in a room with two older teenage boys anyway...was she also intoxicated at the time?  Maybe Iv'e missed something ?....I don't know...too many grey area's in this particular case so far.

8 hours ago, OverSword said:

 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.

Yes, I understand that. I'm also not condoning what may have taken place. Again, my question is why did she put herself in the position of being alone with two older teen boys...in a room...at a party.

8 hours ago, OverSword said:

So obviously you feel he is a poor choice for the supreme court.  Why?  Honestly I want to know.

No, I don't think anything of the sort in whether he is a poor choice or not for the supreme court. If somehow, it turns out that he's lying tho, then it wont look too good for him. I just want to know why she came out of the woodwork decades later to report this alleged groping and amorous behaviour from (at the time) a drunken 17 yr old.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Princess Bride

 

 

  55 minutes ago, Princess Bride said:

Why do you think women should feel comfortable going to the authorities if they won't be believed and charged with lying if they aren't? That's rather odd anyone would think that

I'm saying in a perfect world women should feel comfortable coming forward....I think it's odd you don't want that. 

I also don't think anyone should be automatically believed based on gender...and as a woman....if you tell me you've never met a woman whom you know would lie in order to get revenge or her way then I'd doubt anything further you have to say.

----------------------------------------------------
 
Clearly, that isn't what I said. Why would you play a semantics game of implying that I did? Why would you twist my words like that? 
You also made a nasty gender attack against women in particular, when both males and females can be sexual assault victims, and both men and women can be treacherous and vengeful. Reading through your posts and in light of your dark views of humanity and your own inner darkness you have revealed in your posts here, complete with a total lack of empathy and compassion for others who have been assaulted combined with your superiority in dealing with sexual assaults and harassment I'd say you are rather amazing. You seem to imply that you are stronger than average and those that suffer PTSD like myself are weaklings. So why would you want to talk to me? More importantly, why would I want to continue talking to you? My time, energy, and life are precious. Unless I miss my guess you are trying to psivamp me. Experience has taught me to be careful about who i converse with over the internet on account of all the energy drainers out there. Furthermore, your energy is kind of snakey and I think it's no coincidence your username rhymes with hiss. If I'm incorrect about this then I'm sorry in advance but I will protect myself. I'll be clear you had some good points to, or I wouldn't have bothered discussing with you at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
11 minutes ago, Astra. said:

As I have mentioned previously, I'm feeling 50/50 about this. Is it that she is still very traumatised by this said event...or did she use it more as just a political ploy as to simply slur the mans reputation ?...(which no doubt she already has)..

I dont ever think about John Elway, every once in a while however "the Drive" will be played on some sports channel and my heart is ripped out like I was 9 years old all over again.  (an American football reference)

I imagine its the same with these victims (assuming they actually are) coming forward as the men who they are accusing gain national prominence and are splattered across the news 24/7

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
1 hour ago, Astra. said:

No, I don't think anything of the sort in whether he is a poor choice or not for the supreme court. If somehow, it turns out that he's lying tho, then it wont look too good for him. I just want to know why she came out of the woodwork decades later to report this alleged groping and amorous behaviour from (at the time) a drunken 17 yr old.

She didn't just come out of the woodwork.  She was receiving therapy.  I know numerous women who were attempted to be raped, and didn't say anything.  Coworkers, friends.  My wife was raped in college and didn't come forward.  Because she was scared.  But, when you see a person that will affect the rights of Americans for generations to come, will that not make you come forward?  People can shame victims all they want, but they cannot silence them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam
20 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

She didn't just come out of the woodwork.  She was receiving therapy. 

She said it was four attackers then, and his name never came up in those sessions. 

20 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

I know numerous women who were attempted to be raped, and ....

Even going by HER testimony, it was not rape.

Are you guys ever gonna stop trying to turn molehills into Mount McKinley? 

20 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

  But, when you see a person that will affect the rights of Americans for generations to come, will that not make you come forward?  

Why didn't she come forward when he was made a Federal Judge years ago?

Why didn't she speak up or get noticed during ANY of the Six previous background checks the FBI ran on this guy over the decades?

The world wonders....  ;)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
9 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

Why didn't she come forward when he was made a Federal Judge years ago?

Why didn't she speak up or get noticed during ANY of the Six previous background checks the FBI ran on this guy over the decades?

The world wonders....  ;)

Could have something to do with the 24 hour news cycle surrounding a Supreme Court Nominee that ya know doesnt exist in any of those other scenarios

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.