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 -

Will Kavanaugh get the nod?


Myles

Will Kavanaugh be confirmed?  

38 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Kavanaugh get enough YES votes?

    • Yes
      32
    • No
      6

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 10/02/2018 at 07:32 PM

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

i doubt think anyone would deny that Kavanaugh's reputation is damaged the only question is who's responsible. 

I don't know. There were people at the party and Judge was in the room. Only they can verify or deny what Dr Ford says took place. If this happened, he's guilty. That's all there is to it. If it didn't happen, then she filed a false accusation. Not the first time that's happened. She would be just as wrong as he would be for doing what it's said he did. I'm not the kind of female who would say men should be unjustly accused for things they didn't do. There was proof and his own admission in the Bill Cosby case. We don't have that here.

 

5 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

courts and jury's just don't work that way and neither does life from my experience. 

I'm done. No point in continuing. I hope for your sake, somebody doesn't take offense to you.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

The background checks are provided to the Senate via the WH. If they come back badly the WH would drop the nominee. 

None of this disputes what I said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

None of this disputes what I said. 

Sure it does. Neither Sotomayor or Kegan were popular with conservative voters and that played no role in Republican Senators voting to confirm them. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Sure it does. Neither Sotomayor or Kegan were popular with conservative voters and that played no role in Republican Senators voting to confirm them. 

What are you even on about? They were both appointed by Obama and Dems controlled the Senate on both occasions. Any vote against would simply be symbolic and only a few voted for them anyway. Hardly political suicide.

Sometimes a good candidate is just voted for by the opposition when they're both highly qualified and the vote against wouldn't matter. Dems themselves, every single one, voted for Scalia, even when they knew of his personal political leanings, because he was simply an incredible candidate. Someone truly worthy of being one of the top judges in the country.

My point was that any background check that finds things that might result in public backlash strong enough to cost them politically (like rumours of a Republican nomination secretly being gay or something for example), would cause the candidate to be dropped. There wouldn't be a secret trial, the candidate wouldn't be presumed innocent by those nominating them. The political fallout would simply be weighed up and a decision would be made based on how it might play out in the court of public opinion.

The problem with Kavanaugh is that these allegations, I assume, didn't come up in the background check, and also that Republican voters clearly don't care about any such scandal. They'll believe whatever they're fed, as is evident by this thread (and the election of Trump for that matter). So instead of Republican politicians doing what would normally be done before the world turned upside down - simply bringing in a better candidate - they've stuck by their candidate and blamed it all on an evil conspiracy, which feeds right into their base.

Being able to watch the political machinations of the US from the outside looking in is just so fascinating. I mean it's like a different planet, especially in the past decade or so.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

What are you even on about? They were both appointed by Obama and Dems controlled the Senate on both occasions

And the same is true now except Trump is the the President and the Senate is GOP controlled. So what are you on about Sir?

Edited by lost_shaman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

What are you even on about? They were both appointed by Obama and Dems controlled the Senate on both occasions. Any vote against would simply be symbolic and only a few voted for them anyway. Hardly political suicide.

Sometimes a good candidate is just voted for by the opposition when they're both highly qualified and the vote against wouldn't matter. Dems themselves, every single one, voted for Scalia, even when they knew of his personal political leanings, because he was simply an incredible candidate. Someone truly worthy of being one of the top judges in the country.

My point was that any background check that finds things that might result in public backlash strong enough to cost them politically (like rumours of a Republican nomination secretly being gay or something for example), would cause the candidate to be dropped. There wouldn't be a secret trial, the candidate wouldn't be presumed innocent by those nominating them. The political fallout would simply be weighed up and a decision would be made based on how it might play out in the court of public opinion.

The problem with Kavanaugh is that these allegations, I assume, didn't come up in the background check, and also that Republican voters clearly don't care about any such scandal. They'll believe whatever they're fed, as is evident by this thread (and the election of Trump for that matter). So instead of Republican politicians doing what would normally be done before the world turned upside down - simply bringing in a better candidate - they've stuck by their candidate and blamed it all on an evil conspiracy, which feeds right into their base.

Being able to watch the political machinations of the US from the outside looking in is just so fascinating. I mean it's like a different planet, especially in the past decade or so.

A different planet?  Why is that exactly?  Is it because the United States still has more than a few traditionalists who resist left wing social engineering?

Edited by Lord Harry
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avenatti is nothing but a sleazy shyster enjoying the limelight--but his own chickens are about to come home to roost and with a vengeance. Stay tuned for further developments.B)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Avenatti is nothing but a sleazy shyster enjoying the limelight--but his own chickens are about to come home to roost and with a vengeance. Stay tuned for further developments.B)

Won't surprise me if there's skeletons in the closet. Somebody is going to say something.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a pretty important development. One of the pro Kavanaugh arguments, probably the most popular, is that they believed that Ford was attacked, but that they didn't trust here memory and they believe that she has somehow misidentified Kavanaugh.

One of the ways she provided verification that Kavanaugh and Judge were the ones she knew were responsible, and it was not a case of mistaken identity, was that she met Judge weeks later while he was working at a Safeway supermarket. This would verify that she knew, remembered and was able to identify her attackers, which would ultimately clear up any questions about her memory.

She asked for the Senate to find out if and when Judge worked at that supermarket. It was pretty much the main thing she asked for, for obvious reasons.

Here's the thing, the White House has prohibited the FBI from seeking that information. I mean, told them outright they are not allowed to check out that verifiable part of her story. What the ****?

The White House is directing this investigation, telling them which witnesses and which events they are allowed to investigate, even as it pertains to the Ford accusations. 

Forget the partisan stuff for a minute. Can anyone else claim that this behaviour is not indicative of an actual cover up? 'ypu can't investigate that, you can't interview this person, you can't look into that latest claim where there are said to be multiple witnesses willing to come forward'. This is happening in real time, where everyone can see. How is this real life?

NYMag

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

One of the ways she provided verification that Kavanaugh and Judge were the ones she knew were responsible, and it was not a case of mistaken identity, was that she met Judge weeks later while he was working at a Safeway supermarket. This would verify that she knew, remembered and was able to identify her attackers, which would ultimately clear up any questions about her memory.

All she said was that she saw Judge and that his face was "white" upon seeing her too. That's pretty flimsy evidence of anything. Certainly considering that according to Ford, Judge did nothing wrong other than "horse playing" with Kavanagh "in the room". In my opinion that's hardly any reason for a person's face to "turn white" 6 weeks to 2 months after a Party as a teenager when this person was himself accused of no wrongdoing on his part other than "horse playing" with his Friend. As far as that goes, IF Ford's story was completely TRUE Judge may have thought Kavanagh and Ford were in the room on the Bed consensually 'fooling around' when he entered the room too and "horse played" with Kavanagh so why would his face turn "white" again when he himself was accused of doing nothing wrong on that night? 

Edit: On the other hand if Judge knew that Kavanagh was "assaulting" Ford in the room and then began "horse playing" with Kavanagh while he was "assaulting" Ford and subsequently "jumped" on them and allowed Ford to escape the room, then wouldn't that make Judge the "hero" who saved her from the "assault"? Again no reason for his face to turn "white" upon seeing her 6 weeks to 2 months later. In fact I'd think she'd be running up to him to thank him for stopping such an "assault" by his Friend.

Edited by lost_shaman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Here's a pretty important development. One of the pro Kavanaugh arguments, probably the most popular, is that they believed that Ford was attacked, but that they didn't trust here memory and they believe that she has somehow misidentified Kavanaugh.

One of the ways she provided verification that Kavanaugh and Judge were the ones she knew were responsible, and it was not a case of mistaken identity, was that she met Judge weeks later while he was working at a Safeway supermarket. This would verify that she knew, remembered and was able to identify her attackers, which would ultimately clear up any questions about her memory.

She asked for the Senate to find out if and when Judge worked at that supermarket. It was pretty much the main thing she asked for, for obvious reasons.

Here's the thing, the White House has prohibited the FBI from seeking that information. I mean, told them outright they are not allowed to check out that verifiable part of her story. What the ****?

The White House is directing this investigation, telling them which witnesses and which events they are allowed to investigate, even as it pertains to the Ford accusations. 

Forget the partisan stuff for a minute. Can anyone else claim that this behaviour is not indicative of an actual cover up? 'ypu can't investigate that, you can't interview this person, you can't look into that latest claim where there are said to be multiple witnesses willing to come forward'. This is happening in real time, where everyone can see. How is this real life?

NYMag

So did he work at the super market during that time. While I do not think that would prove anything one way or another I would think that information could be attained without the need for the FBI to investigate it. I would find out if it is true or not before I started yelling cover up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Gertdoggy said:

So did he work at the super market during that time. While I do not think that would prove anything one way or another I would think that information could be attained without the need for the FBI to investigate it. I would find out if it is true or not before I started yelling cover up.

Does only the FBI have the power to discover when Judge worked at the Supermarket 36 years ago? Wouldn't the Supermarket either still have those records which any local reporter could then ask to see, or if the Supermarket no longer has records going back that far then the IRS would or Social Security records could reflect this which again would be easily obtainable? If not a local Journalist I'd think any run of the mill Private investigator could discover these Facts or disprove them. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Does only the FBI have the power to discover when Judge worked at the Supermarket 36 years ago? Wouldn't the Supermarket either still have those records which any local reporter could then ask to see, or if the Supermarket no longer has records going back that far then the IRS would or Social Security records could reflect this which again would be easily obtainable? If not a local Journalist I'd think any run of the mill Private investigator could discover these Facts or disprove them. 

Why had her two "pro bono" Lawyers who knew this would be part of her testimony not verified that Judge worked at the Supermarket at the time frame in question?

Edited by lost_shaman
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another question, she was asked who was paying for her lie detector test and she could not answer the question, her Lawyers interrupted and said they were working "pro bono", but did not answer who paid the polygraph interrigator. So did the "pro bono" Lawyers pay him out of their pockets or was the polygraph interrogator also working "pro bono"? That was not answered or clarified. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another question, when the Lawyers told the Committee that they were working on "Fords" behalf "pro bono" were they also not under Oath under penalty of Perjury? So wouldn't this mean that if they have received any money that they too are subject to Felony? And furthermore not entitled to any of that $200,000 plus Go Fund Me money raised on Fords behalf for legal fees? 

This goes towards my previous question above as to who paid the polygraph interrogator or whether he also was working "pro bono". If he was paid by Ford, then she perjured herself with her non answer, or if the Lawyers paid him, then they had to have paid out of their own Pockets. If either of the two Lawyers have accepted any fees at all they have perjured themselves under penalty of Felony and subject to loss of their license to practice Law.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Another question, when the Lawyers told the Committee that they were working on "Fords" behalf "pro bono" were they also not under Oath under penalty of Perjury? So wouldn't this mean that if they have received any money that they too are subject to Felony? And furthermore not entitled to any of that $200,000 plus Go Fund Me money raised on Fords behalf for legal fees? 

This goes towards my previous question above as to who paid the polygraph interrogator or whether he also was working "pro bono". If he was paid by Ford, then she perjured herself with her non answer, or if the Lawyers paid him, then they had to have paid out of their own Pockets. If either of the two Lawyers have accepted any fees at all they have perjured themselves under penalty of Felony and subject to loss of their license to practice Law.

I believe you may be right. I definitely heard her testify about the Go Fund Me pages and she said she did not know how much was in them. I heard the attorneys tell the Committee that they were working pro bono.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, susieice said:

I believe you may be right. I definitely heard her testify about the Go Fund Me pages and she said she did not know how much was in them. I heard the attorneys tell the Committee that they were working pro bono.

Right so the Lawyer's should have no ability to be paid at all. The Legal fee Go Fund Me $200,000 plus dollars should not be able to be paid to these two Lawyers. On the other hand the Go Fund Me page in Fords name over $500,000 dollars as of 24 hours ago would be available to Ford herself. Seems like a nice payday to me. Also who paid for the Flight to D.C. she took? Was it the Senate Committee? 

Edited by lost_shaman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also are there Ethics violations if any of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee or Senate in general if any of them or their Staff contributed to Ford's general Go Fund Me account? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

All she said was that she saw Judge and that his face was "white" upon seeing her too. That's pretty flimsy evidence of anything. Certainly considering that according to Ford, Judge did nothing wrong other than "horse playing" with Kavanagh "in the room". In my opinion that's hardly any reason for a person's face to "turn white" 6 weeks to 2 months after a Party as a teenager when this person was himself accused of no wrongdoing on his part other than "horse playing" with his Friend. As far as that goes, IF Ford's story was completely TRUE Judge may have thought Kavanagh and Ford were in the room on the Bed consensually 'fooling around' when he entered the room too and "horse played" with Kavanagh so why would his face turn "white" again when he himself was accused of doing nothing wrong on that night? 

Edit: On the other hand if Judge knew that Kavanagh was "assaulting" Ford in the room and then began "horse playing" with Kavanagh while he was "assaulting" Ford and subsequently "jumped" on them and allowed Ford to escape the room, then wouldn't that make Judge the "hero" who saved her from the "assault"? Again no reason for his face to turn "white" upon seeing her 6 weeks to 2 months later. In fact I'd think she'd be running up to him to thank him for stopping such an "assault" by his Friend.

If their intention was rape and they both had her at their mercy on the bed, then why didn't rape happen? Sorry, but her story has enough holes big enough to drive a truck through. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gertdoggy said:

So did he work at the super market during that time. While I do not think that would prove anything one way or another I would think that information could be attained without the need for the FBI to investigate it. I would find out if it is true or not before I started yelling cover up.

I’d imagine it would prove that Ford’s memory is just fine and her story of Judge being identified as being in the room at time of the incident as authentic. But really is this all nessesary? Why doesn’t Judge just come out and tell us all whether he did work in a supermarket at the time that Ford say’s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:
Mitchell: "May I ask, Dr. Ford, how did you get to Washington?

Ford: "In an airplane."

Mitchell: "I ask that because its been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the committee because of your fear of flying. Is that true?"

Ford: "I was hoping that they would come to me (in California) but I realized that was an unrealistic request."

Mitchell: "it would have been a quicker trip for me."

Ford: "That was certainly what I was hoping to avoid getting on an airplane. But I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends and get on the plane."

Mitchell: "You fly fairly frequently for your hobbies and you've had to fly for your work. Is that true?"

Ford: "Correct. Unfortunately."

Not quite the lie that is portrayed, is it? Basically 'I preferred not to fly, but when I had to I did'.

Does she need the "help of some friends"  to get up the gumption to fly for pleasure and work?  Her answer of "Correct. Unfortunately" I interpret as "Darn!  I've been caught at it"  There is a big difference between preferring not to fly and being afraid of flying, as she claimed.  I'm afraid to fly and no amount of encouragement from friends could change that.  To get me on a plane would require a dart gun and a packing crate.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

A different planet?  Why is that exactly?  Is it because the United States still has more than a few traditionalists who resist left wing social engineering?

...and not to forget the odd keg party. Those traditionalists are doing a great job of defeating the left. One beer and one scandal at a time.

Edited by Captain Risky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

...and not to forget the odd keg party. Those traditionalists are doing a great job of defeating the left.

I'm younger than Kavanagh, and I probably started going to "Keg parties" in 1989 til around 1993. Back then I was 13-17 years old. At that time "Keg parties" were happening almost every weekend and I live 1,200 miles away at least. It was just what people used to do all the time back then. Those NEVER happen now as far as I know. you even saw them in the Movies back then. It was just what people used to do. "Teen Wolf" as an example. Or "Wierd Science" as an example. These "Keg parties" just used to be part of growing up, it was the 'culture' of youth back then up until the mid-1990's. After that the Police who turned a blind eye to them, cracked down and you'll almost NEVER see or hear of such a thing now. But you can't judge young people who grew up in the late 1970's to mid-1990's for attending such parties, we all did that all over the U.S. between those time periods.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lost_shaman said:

I'm younger than Kavanagh, and I probably started going to "Keg parties" in 1989 til around 1993. Back then I was 13-17 years old. At that time "Keg parties" were happening almost every weekend and I live 1,200 miles away at least. It was just what people used to do all the time back then. Those NEVER happen now as far as I know. you even saw them in the Movies back then. It was just what people used to do. "Teen Wolf" as an example. Or "Wierd Science" as an example. These "Keg parties" just used to be part of growing up, it was the 'culture' of youth back then up until the mid-1990's. After that the Police who turned a blind eye to them, cracked down and you'll almost NEVER see or hear of such a thing now. But you can't judge young people who grew up in the late 1970's to mid-1990's for attending such parties, we all did that all over the U.S. between those time periods.

True.  Animal House may be a comedy, but it's not entirely fiction.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, lost_shaman said:

I'm younger than Kavanagh, and I probably started going to "Keg parties" in 1989 til around 1993. Back then I was 13-17 years old. At that time "Keg parties" were happening almost every weekend and I live 1,200 miles away at least. It was just what people used to do all the time back then. Those NEVER happen now as far as I know. you even saw them in the Movies back then. It was just what people used to do. "Teen Wolf" as an example. Or "Wierd Science" as an example. These "Keg parties" just used to be part of growing up, it was the 'culture' of youth back then up until the mid-1990's. After that the Police who turned a blind eye to them, cracked down and you'll almost NEVER see or hear of such a thing now. But you can't judge young people who grew up in the late 1970's to mid-1990's for attending such parties, we all did that all over the U.S. between those time periods.

I’m not judging anyone cause like you I was also one of those guy’s. I guess the next generation of politicians will be answering to blaze and pill popping allegations. I guess it’s all relative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.