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, aztek said:

me neither.  nor i see any evidence of her accusations

I don't think it will get to the point where evidence would even allowed to be displayed.  Republicans want to ramrod him through before the Mid-terms so they won't risk the chance of losing Congress and thus the confirmations.  Democrats on the other hand want to draw it out till past November for the same reason.  Whether he assaulted her or not is really irrelevant.  Only who controls congress and the timing of the vote really determines his fate.  It's not like being a sexual predator is viewed as a negative for politicians anyways.  It's almost a prerequisite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

What struck me as odd was that Grassley had a letter dated from Sept. 14 from 65 women from the Girl's school in question: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-09-14 65 Women who know Kavanaugh from High School - Kavanaugh Nomination.pdf

Given the time it takes to gather and prepare such things, it makes me think that all the Senators were aware of this issue before the hearings even started.

So you think someone from Feinstein's office leaked it to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
1 minute ago, OverSword said:

So you think someone from Feinstein's office leaked it to them?

Or Kavanaugh himself listed his wild parties in High School as a potential liability.  A leak or flat out being told in advance is more likely.  It is Washington D.C. after all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp

It is being reported by some on Twitter that Kavanaugh's accuser (Blasey-Ford) sent a similar letter regarding Neal Gorsuch just last year that never reached the public.

We don't yet know if this information is accurate, but it could certainly explain the apparent, sudden reluctance she has to confirm an appearance to testify before Congress.

Share this post


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

Then I would have thought you of all people would at least consider a potential victim's claim, rather than dismiss it out if hand simply because you don't like her politics. 

I'm disappointed in you. But no longer surprised. 

What victim? She wasn't raped. She took a little horseplay far too serious and the gist of her distress she cites was all in her head. Assumptions of intention, of potential harm--assuming anything happened, at all. If a man attempted to destroy a professional woman's career over what they might have done--but didn't do--forty years ago, would you consider that, just and equitable? I think not.

In any case, Monday, Kavanaugh will have the opportunity to confront his accuser and she the opportunity to make her case in public forum. We'll see how it plays out then. Over here, we have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.  

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What victim? She wasn't raped. She took a little horseplay far too serious and the gist of her distress she cites was all in her head. Assumptions of intention, of potential harm--assuming anything happened, at all. If a man attempted to destroy a professional woman's career over what they might have done--but didn't do--forty years ago, would you consider that, just and equitable? I think not.

Please read the word before 'victim' again, go and buy a dictionary, look it up, then try again. 

Quote

 Over here, we have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.  

Same here. We also believe POTENTIAL victims (use your new book again) shouldn't be disbelieved because they support the 'wrong' party. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
16 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

What victim? She wasn't raped. She took a little horseplay far too serious and the gist of her distress she cites was all in her head. Assumptions of intention, of potential harm--assuming anything happened, at all. If a man attempted to destroy a professional woman's career over what they might have done--but didn't do--forty years ago, would you consider that, just and equitable? I think not. 

Assumptions of intention? Really? When a man pins a woman down and tries to take her clothes off with one hand, and places his other hand over her mouth to stifle her screams, I don't think it would be a stretch to assume his intent was to rape her.

Furthermore, sexual assault is not horseplay, nor does an actual rape have to occur for a woman to get sexual assault victim status.

And how dare you even pretend to know what was going on in her head.

I have read a lot of crap on this site, but nothing so disgusting and despicable as your comments, and the comments of some of the others here.

You all might want to pause for a minute and look at the man you're defending. A man who's been caught lying under oath multiple times; a man whose credibility is already inferior to that of his alleged victim; a man whose moral code is nowhere near what it should be.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
18 minutes ago, Setton said:

Please read the word before 'victim' again, go and buy a dictionary, look it up, then try again. 

Same here. We also believe POTENTIAL victims (use your new book again) shouldn't be disbelieved because they support the 'wrong' party. 

You're the one that keeps bringing that up. I've confined my remarks to the incident in question. In this case, either are a "potential victim". Politics has everything to do with it. Otherwise, why wait 'till now, this key moment, the eleventh hour of assured confirmation? You're either disingenuous or naïve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, OverSword said:

So you think someone from Feinstein's office leaked it to them?

They probably knew through their vetting process that it could come out and had the character witnesses ready in case it did. If it wasn't the man himself who warned them, they might have gotten word from someone who knew she had come forward during the summer.

 

Kinda crazy though that while the Democrats expelled one of their most respected - Franken - due to similar allegations, the Republicans are actively trying to get an accused predator installed on the Supreme Court. An accused rapist who would likely be the deciding vote on the legality of abortion. That just boggles the mind.

That's before we talk about their support of Roy Moore. Who and then voted for. I shall always bring that up. and then voted for Roy Moore. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
6 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

They probably knew through their vetting process that it could come out and had the character witnesses ready in case it did. If it wasn't the man himself who warned them, they might have gotten word from someone who knew she had come forward during the summer.

 

Kinda crazy though that while the Democrats expelled one of their most respected - Franken - due to similar allegations, the Republicans are actively trying to get an accused predator installed on the Supreme Court. An accused rapist who would likely be the deciding vote on the legality of abortion. That just boggles the mind.

That's before we talk about their support of Roy Moore. Who and then voted for. I shall always bring that up. and then voted for Roy Moore. 

The prime word here is accused 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
24 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Assumptions of intention? Really? When a man pins a woman down and tries to take her clothes off with one hand, and places his other hand over her mouth to stifle her screams, I don't think it would be a stretch to assume his intent was to rape her.

Furthermore, sexual assault is not horseplay, nor does an actual rape have to occur for a woman to get sexual assault victim status.

And how dare you even pretend to know what was going on in her head.

I have read a lot of crap on this site, but nothing so disgusting and despicable as your comments, and the comments of some of the others here.

You all might want to pause for a minute and look at the man you're defending. A man who's been caught lying under oath multiple times; a man whose credibility is already inferior to that of his alleged victim; a man whose moral code is nowhere near what it should be.

That's a load of bull. I don't buy in to any of it. How dare you to presume to tell me what to think. I'm treating her just like I'd treat a man making outrageous and unproven accusations. We're suppose to be equal, or at least, that's the official party line. She aired what she thought in public and subject, therefore, to critique and comment. She's gets to make her case before committee, Monday, while looking the accused in the eye, instead of hiding behind Feinstein's skirts. Let's see how the poor, precious, delicate, terrified little thing fairs then.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
37 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Assumptions of intention? Really? When a man pins a woman down and tries to take her clothes off with one hand, and places his other hand over her mouth to stifle her screams, I don't think it would be a stretch to assume his intent was to rape her.

 

if you can prove it actually happened, you really do not think anyone will take your word for it 36 years later do you?

Share this post


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

They probably knew through their vetting process that it could come out and had the character witnesses ready in case it did. If it wasn't the man himself who warned them, they might have gotten word from someone who knew she had come forward during the summer.

 

Kinda crazy though that while the Democrats expelled one of their most respected - Franken - due to similar allegations, the Republicans are actively trying to get an accused predator installed on the Supreme Court. An accused rapist who would likely be the deciding vote on the legality of abortion. That just boggles the mind.

That's before we talk about their support of Roy Moore. Who and then voted for. I shall always bring that up. and then voted for Roy Moore. 

There are photographs of the little weasel taking hostile action towards a sleeping woman that had already reprimanded him for being sexually inappropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
3 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

it should be delayed. For at least 2 years.

On what grounds?    That you don't like him?  Hey RJ, Feinstein just admitted she doesn't know what is truthful in the woman's statement and you think a president should be denied his right to appoint a Justice on this?  LMAO,   Justify your ridiculous declaration.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

What struck me as odd was that Grassley had a letter dated from Sept. 14 from 65 women from the Girl's school in question: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-09-14 65 Women who know Kavanaugh from High School - Kavanaugh Nomination.pdf

Given the time it takes to gather and prepare such things, it makes me think that all the Senators were aware of this issue before the hearings even started.

How long do you think it takes?   Only the democrats knew about this and somehow you blame the republicans.  WTF Gromdor, defend your ridiculous claim.

Edited by Merc14
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
58 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

You're the one that keeps bringing that up. I've confined my remarks to the incident in question. In this case, either are a "potential victim". Politics has everything to do with it. Otherwise, why wait 'till now, this key moment, the eleventh hour of assured confirmation? You're either disingenuous or naïve.

Perhaps because the idea of a man who once did that to her in such an important position is enough to make her overcome the fear of being disbelieved, ridiculed and maligned. 

Obviously, the timing is very convenient for the Democrats and there's almost certainly a political motivation. 

Doesn't automatically make it a lie though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

They probably knew through their vetting process that it could come out and had the character witnesses ready in case it did. If it wasn't the man himself who warned them, they might have gotten word from someone who knew she had come forward during the summer.

 

Kinda crazy though that while the Democrats expelled one of their most respected - Franken - due to similar allegations, the Republicans are actively trying to get an accused predator installed on the Supreme Court. An accused rapist who would likely be the deciding vote on the legality of abortion. That just boggles the mind.

That's before we talk about their support of Roy Moore. Who and then voted for. I shall always bring that up. and then voted for Roy Moore. 

Not quite the same thing.  Franken wasn't expelled, he resigned, and in his case there were pictures and admissions, not just allegations.  Furthermore, the incidents in question happened when he was an adult.  An "accused predator" is still an innocent man until he is a "tried and convicted predator" and deserves anything to which other innocent persons are entitled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
37 minutes ago, aztek said:

if you can prove it actually happened, you really do not think anyone will take your word for it 36 years later do you?

If you can prove it happened, no one would have a choice but to take your word for it, regardless of when it took place. If it happened, it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
1 minute ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

If you can prove it happened, no one would have a choice but to take your word for it, regardless of when it took place. If it happened, it happened.

if you can than yes, sure.

 

Edited by aztek

Share this post


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

Perhaps because the idea of a man who once did that to her in such an important position is enough to make her overcome the fear of being disbelieved, ridiculed and maligned. 

Obviously, the timing is very convenient for the Democrats and there's almost certainly a political motivation. 

Doesn't automatically make it a lie though. 

The burden of proof of his guilt, of something she claims he did or tried to do when he was a child, is on her. It's not "guilty until proven innocent" over here. She's a professional teacher and scholar and I'm sure she understands all that. Monday should be very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
4 minutes ago, Setton said:

Perhaps because the idea of a man who once did that to her in such an important position is enough to make her overcome the fear of being disbelieved, ridiculed and maligned. 

Obviously, the timing is very convenient for the Democrats and there's almost certainly a political motivation. 

Doesn't automatically make it a lie though. 

You seem to accept it as automatically true.  It is neither true or false until proven.  If it can't be proven then any court in the land would deem it false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
1 minute ago, aztek said:

uh, we have a choice not to take your word

Yes you do have that choice, but if it was proved, why would you doubt it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
1 minute ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Yes you do have that choice, but if it was proved, why would you doubt it?

i edited my post, i misread at first ,my bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
55 minutes ago, aztek said:

if you can't prove it actually happened, you really do not think anyone will take your word for it 36 years later do you?

Isn't this what you meant to say?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
Just now, aztek said:

i edited my post, i misread at first ,my bad

No worries.

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.