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
24 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

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.

Not the next day....  I can't even get a hold of 10 of my school mates from 30 years ago, let alone get them together to write a letter together.  Yet this letter pops up with 65.  It had to be prepared in advance and for that to happen there had to be fore knowledge and a cause.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
Just now, Gromdor said:

Not the next day....  I can't even get a hold of 10 of my school mates from 30 years ago, let alone get them together to write a letter together.  Yet this letter pops up with 65.  It had to be prepared in advance and for that to happen there had to be fore knowledge and a cause.

I am pretty sure many of the people he knew have been communicating as their friend becomes a Justice so now, nothing unbelievable here except the left's willingness to destroy a man's reputation with nothing more than a letter to Feinstein that she sat on her with fat old **** for two months because she doesn't believe it either, hence the backtracking.  It is a ridiculous accusation with zero merit, you should be ashamed Gromdor as you aren't one of these zealots like RJ or Imaginary#s

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
5 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Not the next day....  I can't even get a hold of 10 of my school mates from 30 years ago, let alone get them together to write a letter together.  Yet this letter pops up with 65.  It had to be prepared in advance and for that to happen there had to be fore knowledge and a cause.

Not necessarily. When Kavanaugh was nominated, I predicted in a post the Democrats would find someone to "Me Too." him and guess what? They did. The Republicans sought character references from these women, preemptively, to forestall and ameliorate this sort of eleventh hour revelation. They considered the possibility the Dems would "Anita Hill" him.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks

Woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault wants FBI to investigate incident before testifying to Senate
In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers said an FBI investigation of the incident that occurred decades ago should be the first step in addressing their client’s allegation. The letter said her life has been turned upside down. A hearing with the Supreme Court nominee and Ford has been scheduled for Monday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/grassley-says-mondays-hearing-will-be-limited-to-two-witnesses-kavanaugh-and-his-accuser/2018/09/18/301da074-bb48-11e8-a8aa-860695e7f3fc_story.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
54 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Not the next day....  I can't even get a hold of 10 of my school mates from 30 years ago, let alone get them together to write a letter together.  Yet this letter pops up with 65.  It had to be prepared in advance and for that to happen there had to be fore knowledge and a cause.

Interestingly, when Politico reached out to the 65 women, a day after Ford came forward, only a handful confirmed that they still stand by Kavanaugh.The others have gone silent.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/16/trump-kavanaugh-allegations-response-826069

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks

Oh and this is interesting.

Kavanaugh on Monday issued a fresh denial of the allegations, which have roiled his confirmation process.

“I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone,” he said in a statement. “Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday.”

Yet his denials only prompted further questions. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that Kavanaugh had told him that he was not present at the party in question — which prompted some to wonder how Kavanaugh could make such a claim given that Ford had never specified the exact date or location of the gathering.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kavanaugh-accuser-willing-to-testify-her-lawyer-says/2018/09/17/21db2860-ba6c-11e8-9812-a389be6690af_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.222b162dd8d6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam
4 hours ago, aztek said:

whether she saved it or not, is not what is disputed, she technically did rule against defendant. actually she did not save anything, she granted voluntary motion  to dismiss by plaintiff.

to be honest i also do not think it had anything to do with sex accusations, either way.

42087809_2224726007745302_31505746773200

 

Hell, he won't even be able to run for Class President now.

 

And that's no joke.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
11 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Interestingly, when Politico reached out to the 65 women, a day after Ford came forward, only a handful confirmed that they still stand by Kavanaugh.The others have gone silent.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/16/trump-kavanaugh-allegations-response-826069

And what does that mean?

Dozens of others either didn't respond to POLITICO's inquiries or could not be reached.

This is misleading intended to create the perception of guilt.  How many of those, could not be reached?  Perhaps a substantial number?  How many did they really try to contact?  Other’s have already made their statement and doesn’t feel they need to be harassed by Politico.  But those that have commented have stood by their statements.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
2 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

And what does that mean?

Dozens of others either didn't respond to POLITICO's inquiries or could not be reached.

This is misleading intended to create the perception of guilt.  How many of those, could not be reached?  Perhaps a substantial number?  How many did they really try to contact?  Other’s have already made their statement and doesn’t feel they need to be harassed by Politico.  But those that have commented have stood by their statements.

I agree it's misleading, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them did indeed back off (for whatever reason).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

I am pretty sure many of the people he knew have been communicating as their friend becomes a Justice so now, nothing unbelievable here except the left's willingness to destroy a man's reputation with nothing more than a letter to Feinstein that she sat on her with fat old **** for two months because she doesn't believe it either, hence the backtracking.  It is a ridiculous accusation with zero merit, you should be ashamed Gromdor as you aren't one of these zealots like RJ or Imaginary#s

I wouldn't call an accusation with notes from a therapist, comments from a husband, AND a polygraph zero merit.  Now, before you go on some crazed rant, I AM NOT saying he is guilty.  But there is a difference between zero merit and some interesting evidence.  You are the one that should be ashamed to even say the accusation has zero merit.  Let him take a polygraph.  Although polygraphs aren't 100%, getting it wrong on 2 people would be extremely rare.  We literally use polygraph to give 18 year old kids TS/SCI access.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I agree it's misleading, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them did indeed back off (for whatever reason).

And where in the Hell do you get that?  Again, not answering Politico is no indication of ‘backing off’.  Refusing to be badgered is more of a fnck off! than anything else.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
Just now, Agent0range said:

I wouldn't call an accusation with notes from a therapist, comments from a husband, AND a polygraph zero merit.  Now, before you go on some crazed rant, I AM NOT saying he is guilty.  But there is a difference between zero merit and some interesting evidence.  You are the one that should be ashamed to even say the accusation has zero merit.  Let him take a polygraph.  Although polygraphs aren't 100%, getting it wrong on 2 people would be extremely rare.  We literally use polygraph to give 18 year old kids TS/SCI access.

The problem is in the therapist's notes it says there was 4 guys involved and none of them were named while in her letter it says 2 with Kavanaugh being named, she does claim the therapist wrote the stuff down wrong but that's a bit of a stretch.  The husband does claim the wife mentioned Kavanaugh's name but his testimony is arguably the weakest by far.  As for the polygraph from what I remember it was on if she was attacked/molested that showed up as being truthful without questions asked on who attacked/molested her.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

And where in the Hell do you get that?  Again, not answering Politico is no indication of ‘backing off’.  Refusing to be badgered is more of a fnck off! than anything else.

And where in the hell do you get that? Your assumption is no more (or less for that matter) correct than mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam
29 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

...

Yet his denials only prompted further questions. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that Kavanaugh had told him that he was not present at the party in question — which prompted some to wonder how Kavanaugh could make such a claim given that Ford had never specified the exact date or location of the gathering.

Maybe try to wrap your head around the concept that he knows he never tried to rape anyone.

Or is that too incredible, he being a white man and all?

And the fact that the accuser does know know the exact date is tellling in another way ; how is she supposed to prove it happened? The Polygraph test was administered by her own Lawyer, who is being paid by George Soros.

That does matter, you know. Well, to people who believe in the Rule of Law, and pesky notions that Political fanatics really hate, like Innocent until proven Guilty, and stuff like that.

You folks on the Left may not give a damn about that sort of thing anymore, and it shows, but you ain't speaking for the rest of us and you ain't our Overlords.

 

Edited by AnchorSteam
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
Just now, DarkHunter said:

The problem is in the therapist's notes it says there was 4 guys involved and none of them were named while in her letter it says 2 with Kavanaugh being named, she does claim the therapist wrote the stuff down wrong but that's a bit of a stretch.  The husband does claim the wife mentioned Kavanaugh's name but his testimony is arguably the weakest by far.  As for the polygraph from what I remember it was on if she was attacked/molested that showed up as being truthful without questions asked on who attacked/molested her.

She said 4 guys at the party, 2 in the room.  I'm certainly not going to get in to some debate about the specifics, considering there is a public hearing on Monday.  We will hear it all.  Considering Kavanaugh can't recall interviews during the Bush administration he conducted with possible judges, but can unequivocally say he wasn't at this party, makes me think he's not a truthful man anyway.  So we'll see.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
2 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

She said 4 guys at the party, 2 in the room.  I'm certainly not going to get in to some debate about the specifics, considering there is a public hearing on Monday.  We will hear it all.  Considering Kavanaugh can't recall interviews during the Bush administration he conducted with possible judges, but can unequivocally say he wasn't at this party, makes me think he's not a truthful man anyway.  So we'll see.

You are right that there is no need to go into specific with the hearing coming up but the two guys in the room and four at the party comes from the professor trying to account between the discrepancy in her letter and what her therapist wrote down.  

Honestly how likely is it that a licensed therapist is going to mess up four guys at the party and four guys in the room involved in the attack in their notes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
3 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

And where in the hell do you get that?

Common sense, rationality, Presume innocent until proven guilty, not bend on a hatred of Trump.

 

Your assumption is no more (or less for that matter) correct than mine.

OMG!  acknowledging that I don’t know sans the presumption of guilt is not an assumption.  You’re the one composing.  The dripping of your hatred is so sickening.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
11 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

Maybe try to wrap your head around the concept that he knows he never tried to rape anyone.

Or is that too incredible, he being a white man and all?

And the fate that the accuser does know know the exact date is tellling in another way ; how is she supposed to prove it happened? The Polygraph test was administered by her own Lawyer, who is being paid by George Soros.

That does matter, you know. Well, to people who believe in the Rule of Law, and pesky notions that Political fanatics really hate, like Innocent until proven Guilty, and stuff like that.

You folks on the Left may not give a damn about that sort of thing anymore, and it shows, but you ain't speaking for the rest of us and you ain't our Overlords.

None of this has anything to do with Kavanaugh being a white male, nor does it have anything to do with overlords and such nonsense.

Of course he's innocent until proved guilty. It boils down to a he said, she said and anything else other witnesses have to add to that. The FBI should interview everyone under oath, and we can then all take it from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
3 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Common sense, rationality, Presume innocent until proven guilty, not bend on a hatred of Trump.

What does that have anything to do with what we were discussing?

3 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

OMG!  acknowledging that I don’t know sans the presumption of guilt is not an assumption.  You’re the one composing.  The dripping of your hatred is so sickening.

I'm not the one spewing hatred and vitriol. Furthermore, we weren't discussing presumption of guilt. We were discussing why some of the 65 women have decided to remain silent. My point being that your assumption was no less correct or wrong than mine. For all we know we are both correct or we are both way off the mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam
13 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

None of this has anything to do with Kavanaugh being a white male, nor does it have anything to do with overlords and such nonsense.\

The viciously partisan nature of this entire thing is what is nonsense. (Ford had her entire history of Social Meida scrubbed already)  This guy is getting Borked and "by any means" includes lying yer' butts off about everything that you can and can't get away with.... and its is just sick.

Quote

Of course he's innocent until proved guilty. It boils down to a he said, she said and anything else other witnesses have to add to that. The FBI should interview everyone under oath, and we can then all take it from there.

Since when does the FBI handle a 36 year-old rape allegation between people who were minors at the time? :huh: That is a Local Police matter.... unless that statues of Limitations ran out 30 years ago.

But does that matter to you guys?

Oh, and BTW, none of those 65 women are recanting, its just that not all of them are willing to put up with the torturous Dog & Pony show that the Leftist Media wants to torment them with. The Left has a habit of being abnormally vicious to people who are not rwell-connected enough to fight back.

Of course not, and if this was anything resembling reality, it would have been brought up during the hearings.

You know.... if this kind of Trolling on a National level is all we are going to get from you guys anymore, putting every damn one of you on Ignore is really the only option left.

Bye.

Edited by AnchorSteam
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
3 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

None of this has anything to do with Kavanaugh being a white male, nor does it have anything to do with overlords and such nonsense.

Of course he's innocent until proved guilty. It boils down to a he said, she said and anything else other witnesses have to add to that. The FBI should interview everyone under oath, and we can then all take it from there.

Why would the FBI investgate a local crime that occurred 36 years ago,that is far beyond the statute of limitations and the witness is unwilling to swear under oath in court that she is telling the truth.  She offers no witnesses, no friends that she told about this attack, no one remembers it , she doesn't know any details such as when, where and who and the only other guy at the party she has named has denied the allegations totally.  Oh, BTW, so has everyone who ever knew this exceptional human being.  Defend your assertion child

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
2 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

What does that have anything to do with what we were discussing?

I was responding to your question.  Or can you not remember that far back?

 

I'm not the one spewing hatred and vitriol.

You’re not the only one.

 

Furthermore, we weren't discussing presumption of guilt.

And the way you decide to cherry pick what you decide to present, implies guilt where there is none.  That tactic gets old.

 

We were discussing why some of the 65 women have decided to remain silent. My point being that your assumption was no less correct or wrong than mine. For all we know we are both correct or we are both way off the mark.

You’re the one that made the assumption that the women where backing off from their statement.  I pointed out that was a poor assumption as the report stated it couldn’t reach many.  But of the ones that did comment, haven’t backed off.  Not talking to Politico is not an act of ‘backing off’.  That is no assumption.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

None of this has anything to do with Kavanaugh being a white male, nor does it have anything to do with overlords and such nonsense.

Of course he's innocent until proved guilty. It boils down to a he said, she said and anything else other witnesses have to add to that. The FBI should interview everyone under oath, and we can then all take it from there.

To do what, determine whether a fifteen year old girl was groped at a drunken preppie party in 1982 and by whom? If she liked that kind of company, I rather doubt it was her first time. She's now a fifty-one year old college professor from California, poor traumatized little thing.  http://theothermccain.com/2018/09/17/trauma-queen-what-do-we-know-about-christine-blasey-ford/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam
11 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

.....

You’re the one that made the assumption that the women where backing off from their statement.  I pointed out that was a poor assumption as the report stated it couldn’t reach many.  But of the ones that did comment, haven’t backed off.  Not talking to Politico is not an act of ‘backing off’.  That is no assumption.

I wouldn't talk to the Politico if I was dying of thirst and they had the only water in town. 

I might climb up to the 2nd floor and pee on them, but that's about it.

I also heard that its up to 200 now. 

Edited by AnchorSteam
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wickian
5 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

I wouldn't take to the Politico if I was dying of thirst and they had the only water in town. 

I might climb up to the 2nd floor and pee on them, but that's about it.

I also heard that its up to 200 now. 

There is one good thing I can say about Politico.  They aren't HuffPost.

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.