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

Sir Wearer of Hats

I notice that most of the “I believe Dr Ford” people here have become silent, and the last man at the barricades is down to having to argue semantics over something that they can prove he said in order to call him unfit for office.

this is sad.

as has been said, this is mostly sad for the #MeToo movement, as its now been hyjacked politically in such a disprovable way.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
4 minutes ago, aztek said:

not her, democrats did, they have brainwashed half the nation into believing anything they say,

brainwashing = propaganda, you believe you have to vote D

mind control is you vote D but have no clue why,

The more I see of their antics, the more I’m not impressed.  The more they try to make me believe something, the more I see through their falsehoods.  The more they show their true selves, the more they reveal their intentions.  And that is a cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aaron2016

Accurate portrayal of the Senate hearing?

 

 

 

Edited by Aaron2016
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

 

Forget the assault allegations for a minute. The above comment should be the disqualifier in all of this.

Its not that the accusations arent important , they are and they could affect his ability to be impartial, the above statement however proves Kavanaugh isnt qualified for the bench. A person in his position simply cant speak like that. Even if he believes it. The fact that he is so partisan he is comfortable speaking like that in public combined with the fact that he is too stupid to understand and or too arrogant to care about that basic concept of the judiciary says all we need to know about his qualifications. He is not fit for the Supreme Court of the United States.

He should be disqualified for speaking the truth?  Accusations should have no place in this hearing, only the fact that he has given 30 years of faithful service in the law to this country and has given out over 300 decisions from the second highest court in the nation.  That should be the only determining factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit

This time I am offering up my opinion, the hearing was supposed to be a job interview for a position on the Supreme Court not a trial.

The Supreme Court is a pretty huge thing, one might go as far as to call it Supreme. A true privilege of a job to receive. 

I feel, if I where interviewing anyone for any job, and they replied to any question with the childish retort of, "I don't know,  have you?". I  would have thanked them for there time, and told them I would get back to them. Especially if there where 27 other equally as good people capable of the job.

Maybe he was under pressure but he could easily have still answered with respect after all I imagine working on the Supreme Court is also high pressure. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam

The Democrats were never out to give Kavanaugh a fair confirmation. They feel he will be the deciding vote to overturn Roe vs Wade, and for some reason they believe he would give Trump a free ride, should he be charged with something.

I watched much of the questioning and what was asked of him was unfair. They were out to stall or stop this nomination period.

He had great judicial answers to much of the questioning, yet got asked personally how he felt about things, which he would answer "he never let his personal feelings get in the way of judicial proceedings" which was one reason he was sitting in front of the Senate.as a Supreme court nominee. He was an excellent judge.

Senator Feinstein asked almost 250 questions herself, and he got asked more questions than all the other Supreme court justices combined. They never intended to give him any Democratic votes, so if Kavanaugh comes back clean after this FBI questioning, well we know he won't get a single vote from the Democrats anyway.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, Kismit said:

I feel, if I where interviewing anyone for any job, and they replied to any question with the childish retort of, "I don't know,  have you?". I  would have thanked them for there time, and told them I would get back to them. Especially if there where 27 other equally as good people capable of the job.

Respect is a two way street.  He was simply responding in kind.

 

Maybe he was under pressure but he could easily have still answered with respect after all I imagine working on the Supreme Court is also high pressure. 

Maybe under pressure?  He has been raped on television before the world.  His family has been threatened.  There’s a difference between the pressure of answering tough interview questions or making the right decision in a court case and fighting back from an assault.  Maybe under pressure?!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
Just now, RavenHawk said:

Respect is a two way street.  He was simply responding in kind.

 No he wasn't.  And it was a job interview. If you are asked during an interview about whether you have ever been drunk to the point of not remembering, you have many many options to answer. The Lady who asked him actually showed restraint in handling the situation. Kavanaugh did not. The lady asking the relevant question was quite respectful.  I think you will find that was why he apologized at the end for both of the childish outbursts. 

 

Maybe under pressure?  He has been raped on television before the world.  His family has been threatened.  There’s a difference between the pressure of answering tough interview questions or making the right decision in a court case and fighting back from an assault.  Maybe under pressure?!

Dr Blasey -Ford  has also had threats made against her and her family and has also been racked over the coals publicly through the media and social media.  She has also been accused of guilt before being proven guilty, so many times people don't seem to realise that is exactly what they are doing. That innocent until proven guilty is a double edged sword in this case. And Blasey-Ford remained civil and courteous. She was and is on trial also. As is every single person who claims sexual assault.  But I am not arguing guilt or innocence.  I am stating that a Supreme Court nominee needs to be able to handle themselves in a non-reactionary manner under pressure.  Kavanaugh did not.  There are 27 other conservative applicants who may be better suited.

 

Answers in bold.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
2 hours ago, Kismit said:

This time I am offering up my opinion, the hearing was supposed to be a job interview for a position on the Supreme Court not a trial.

The Supreme Court is a pretty huge thing, one might go as far as to call it Supreme. A true privilege of a job to receive. 

I feel, if I where interviewing anyone for any job, and they replied to any question with the childish retort of, "I don't know,  have you?". I  would have thanked them for there time, and told them I would get back to them. Especially if there where 27 other equally as good people capable of the job.

Maybe he was under pressure but he could easily have still answered with respect after all I imagine working on the Supreme Court is also high pressure. 

What was the question you so handily forgot to quote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Enjoy this article placing the classic story (one of the greatest novels ever written and a superb, top 100 of all time, movie)To Kill a Mockingbird, placed in the political climate of today.  Atticus Finch would be vilified and destroyed by the the democrats, the same party that supported Jim Crow laws.  https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/atticus-finch-was-on-the-wrong-side/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR Daily Monday through Friday 2018-10-02&utm_term=NR5PM Actives

If you don't know who Atticus Finch is then go grab it on Netflix and watch, it is seriously one  of the best movies ever made and, I believe, Robert Duvalls first part.  A great lesson on why believing and prejudging without proof, based on race, religion or politics is so horribly dangerous.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Well, this is what we are down to.  If you believe this BS I'd love to hear your justification.  Read the entire article here (I am sure no one on the left will) but this is the main point:

As for the serial gang rape portion of her story, Swetnick says she actually "didn't know what was occurring" at the parties in question, but later surmised that there must have been other gang rapes happening after she herself was gang raped.  Allegedly.  Was Kavanaugh one of her rapists?  Well, she can't say.  But she's pretty sure he was at that party.  Plus, she says, it would be "too coincidental" for him to have attended these rape parties (she figures they must have been rape parties, right?) without raping someone.  She goes on to state that "if Brett Kavanaugh is one of the people that did this to me," he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.  Well yeah, but she won't say that he was.  Indeed, she provides zero evidence that anyone did any such thing to her.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/10/02/kavanaugh-gang-rape-accuser-i-actually-dont-know-if-kavanaugh-did-anything-and-i-dont-have-proof-anyway-n2524568?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=&bcid=ca7b9f6f6b82481b33941c089a6807d8&recip=19282746

Why isn't this a crime? She swore to this testimony, accused this man of gang rape and has now taken it all back while her witnesses have all neither answered, are dead or refused to answer (yes, I am sure the FBI interviewed them and they said they haven't a clue.  Please, challenge me, as long as you agree to apologize when I am right) so why isn't she in 'cuffs?

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

What was the question you so handily forgot to quote?

You will find it in my reply to the post above this one. But there where two questions asked in which Kavanagh reacted the same way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
5 minutes ago, Kismit said:

You will find it in my reply to the post above this one. But there where two questions asked in which Kavanagh reacted the same way. 

I see no links (farmer never links anything) , why don't you make it easy and link us to what you responded to so vociferously?  Late here I will answer tomorrow

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

I think anyone would get irritated after three hours of being grilled and answering the same questions over and over again. He was being treated more like a criminal than a SC nominee.

They were being extremely genteel with Ford. I thought of a lot of questions I wanted to ask her.

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Apparently an ex-boyfriend of Ford has submitted a sworn affidavit to the Senate Judiciary committee that refutes many of her claims re. trauma.  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm

He says:

She never mentioned any kind of traumatic sexual assault event the entire time he knew her, much like her best friend has reported.

She had no problem living in a small apartment with a single door exit/entrance for years while they were dating (testified she had to install double front doors because of the horrifying attack).

She coached her best friend on how to take a polygraph,  This is a direct contradiction to her claim she never coached anyone on how to take a polygraph .

She NEVER voiced any fear of flying.

For more please read the article

Grassley has "demanded that attorneys for Ford turn over her therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday's dramatic Senate hearing."

In other news, Feinstein is now trying to bury the FBI investigation results for various reasons (Didn't see that one coming did you?  LMAO). https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/huge-development-feinstein-moves-seal-fbi-investigation-case-collapses/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=westernjournalism&utm_content=2018-10-02&utm_campaign=manualpost

Basically, imagine a large paper bag stuffed full of dog excrement and an M-80 firecracker, sitting on Feinstein's desk and the fuse just got lit, that is a good illustration of how this is all turning out for the democrats.  How can I be so sure about the outcome?  Feinstein would be leaking the FBI notes already instead of trying to bury them if they in any way damaged Kavanaugh. Hopefully those FBI notes will be available to attorneys hired by the people so egregiously defamed in this disgusting political hatchet job.

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss

And the unravelling continues......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
18 minutes ago, skliss said:

And the unravelling continues......

Yep.  Astounding that a whole segment of our society is so willing to destroy a person based solely on a story told by a woman!  Guess what, women lie, cheat and make things up just like any other human being and that is why a rational person requires something more than simply her word, especially when that word keeps changing and contains no details.   A time and place to start with, some witnesses that knew about the trauma at the time or other victims and a pattern of behavior that can be traced. There was, literally, nothing corroborating ANY of her story and there were almost no details.  What scant, nebulous details she gave changed as time went on. 

Now they want to investigate if he threw ice at a guy in a bar 36 years ago!  How absurd and blatantly transparent!  The other two "victim's" stories are unraveling like a cheap sweater.   Duke Lacrosse and the Rolling Stone/UVA story should have woken people up but here we are again letting the media ram another lie down our throats to match their political bias.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 10/3/2018 at 7:12 AM, Merc14 said:

Yep.  Astounding that a whole segment of our society is so willing to destroy a person based solely on a story told by a woman! 

I agree. There has to be evidence, otherwise anyone can bring down anyone with just an emotional story.

AND, in this case there was Zero evidence. Not a single other person, or writing, record, or file. No journal, or friend, or councillor told over decades. 

I agree it is horrible that something happened to her. But we can't ruin a man's life because she cried while telling us an emtional story.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

i'm not sure something even happened to her, so far no one and nothing supports her story

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
22 minutes ago, aztek said:

i'm not sure something even happened to her, so far no one and nothing supports her story

Neither am I. She has never shown or spoken of any kind a traumatic event in over 36 years.  I think she has talked herself into believing her story, which is sad in and of itself but at this point I who cares.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

since we mentioned socialism here , i found a cool meme

43006774_2261117877250237_53551554315744

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
24 minutes ago, aztek said:

since we mentioned socialism here , i found a cool meme

43006774_2261117877250237_53551554315744

Maybe they spent their time learning what words mean instead. 

So they could do a job that requires a brain. 

Edited by Setton
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, Setton said:

Maybe they spent their time learning what words mean instead. 

So they could do a job that requires a brain. 

maybe not. lol 

or maybe you are right, they are learning, and when they fail at 40 they go work at McDonald, then demand $15 an hour. lol

Edited by aztek
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
1 hour ago, aztek said:

maybe not. lol 

or maybe you are right, they are learning, and when they fail at 40 they go work at McDonald, then demand $15 an hour. lol

Eh. At least they had 24 years of success in that case. 

Better than any of the ones I remember from school who dropped out at 16.

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.