Kavanaugh Confirmation

#1,251
#1,251
GreyWolf1129 said:
To you and ND40: I stand corrected. But it was out. She took that first difficult step, and she had the option...and if seeking justice was the goal...the obligation to report it to authorities then. Six years ago.

And she didn't. Instead, she sends a letter (did I get this part right?) to DiFi in July? And then Difi sits on it until now.

Why, I ask you, would a female United States Senator, who took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States fail to act, immediately, having been made aware of such a serious allegation against a sitting member of the Judicial Branch?

Sorry, still doesn't pass the smell test. And no, it doesn't help that the victim/accuser is a Democrat. And that's what this boils down to. Partisan politics.

Three words for you: Salem Witch Trials.

If...IF...the alleged event occurred exactly as alleged, it would be a travesty of justice for JK to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. But if it did not, then you can forget ever having a qualified candidate for high office ever appointed again. Because all someone has to do is yell "Witch!", and the mob will handle it from there.

There is a reason why our justice system is designed the way it is. Merry Olde England says "Hi, remember me?"

Cui Bono?
Click to expand...

If by "out" you mean discussed in medical confidentiality, then yes, it was "out." Therapists aren't allowed to discuss such things any more than a doctor would except if the patient allows them. Also, again, the statute of limitations for Washington DC has run out. So, no criminal charges at this point.

Here's a theory to throw at you...

Let's say she's somewhat followed Kavanaugh's career for some time. Saw he was nominated for the SCOTUS even. Decides to write a letter (obviously) that ends up in DiFi's office. Let's just say the letter says "look, I don't want it pushed, I don't want criminal charges, I don't want my name out there with this, but this is the kind of man you're dealing with..."

Nothing happens for a couple of months. Ford might think "okay, whatever..."

Enter the political side of things and Feinstein being a bottom feeding slug that sits on it for all that time, goes through the hearings, goes through the meetings, does all the happy and joyful things a Senator does of the opposing party before deciding to make a very public announcement about it at the 11th hour. As Stew said, she thought it was a stroke of genius since releasing the hint of it without the name nor really any details and was akin to dropping a bucket of bloody ground beef into a shark tank. Every media outlet in the world including Fox, CNN and everything in between gets wrapped into a frenzy trying to be the one that breaks the story. Sexual misconduct sells, you know this.

All the while, I'd assume someone somewhere (I'm going to make the assumption it was in Feinstein's office) leaked at least part of the identification info. There is no way on God's green Earth the media would ever have known about her otherwise. 35 years removed and not even a classmate of his? And Buzzfeed managed to sniff that one out? Really? Yeah, right. Someone "read" the letter to the NYT and this is the information the media used to track her down? Bigfoot riding a unicorn sh!tting gold into the hearing chambers is more believable. Anyway, the woman decides to go on record with her side of the story to make sure it gets right.

A theory. One that fits what we know since DiFi made that extremely public announcement about how the woman "didn't want it leading anywhere." And nobody has asked the obvious questions about it because of the breaking news caption. We'll see where the next couple of days lead. But all told, I want to see the actual content of the letter before moving on.
 
#1,253
#1,253
Lindsey Graham says Judiciary Committee should hear from Brett Kavanaugh accuser, Christine Ford

Senate Judiciary Committee member Lindsey Graham said that the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault should give information to the panel as soon as possible.


“f Ms. Ford wishes to provide information to the committee, I would gladly listen to what she has to say and compare that against all other information we have received about Judge Kavanaugh,” said Graham, R-S.C., in a statement.


Graham added: “If the committee is to hear from Ms. Ford it should be done immediately so the process can continue as scheduled.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee is slated to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination Thursday, when he is is expected to be narrowly confirmed.

Lindsey Graham says Judiciary Committee should hear from Brett Kavanaugh accuser, Christine Ford
 
#1,255
#1,255
Orangeslice13 said:
This is BS and there’s no other conclusion.
It was held till now. If the alleged victim wanted it out then she should have said something to someone else when a week passed and nothing happened. If she was on board with waiting then she clearly wasn’t that upset about it. Either way she knew the deadline and didn’t push the issue.

I say this should be a lesson to those who were really harmed. If you want justice then don’t play it as a game.
Click to expand...

I agree the timing is suspicious and is a reason to doubt it. But we aren't the people who vote.

Let's say there is a hearing and this woman convinces people she's telling the truth. The problem is that he says it's not true. So even if it were true and didn't matter, he's denied it. So now it does matter.
 
#1,256
#1,256
White House, Grassley Back Kavanaugh After Accuser Goes Public

The White House and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) are continuing to give their full backing to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh following an accusation of sexual assault against him. It stems from an alleged incident 35 years ago when Kavanaugh was likely a junior in high school, though his accuser said she could not be sure of the precise year or location of the alleged attack.

Grassley ripped ranking committee Democrat Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) for sitting on the story—she was first made aware of the charge in a letter from Ford in July—and said if Democrats took it seriously, it should have been brought to his attention "much earlier." Feinstein first sent a cryptic statement about the accusation last week before the New Yorker reported Friday on the lurid details of the charge. Ford then emerged to tell the Washington Post she was the accuser, saying she was afraid her story would get twisted by others.

It was "disturbing," Grassley said, that such accusations would come forward before the scheduled committee vote on Kavanaugh Sept. 20.

"Instead, they said nothing during two joint phone calls with the nominee in August, four days of lengthy public hearings, a closed session for all committee members with the nominee where sensitive topics can be discussed and in more than 1,300 written questions," Grassley said. "Sixty-five senators met individually with Judge Kavanaugh during a nearly two-month period before the hearing began, yet Feinstein didn't share this with her colleagues ahead of many of those discussions."

Ford said she told no one about the alleged attack until 2012, when she was in couples counseling with her husband. The therapist's notes, which were reviewed by the Washington Post, didn't mention Kavanaugh's name but did she say she was attacked by students "from an elitist boys’ school" who went on to become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington."

Her husband, Russell Ford, said she spoke of being trapped in a room with two drunken boys. He also said she mentioned Kavanaugh's name and voiced concern he might one day ascend to the Supreme Court—he was a D.C. Circuit Court judge at the time. Ford also said the attack caused her lasting psychological trauma.

However, she also said she does not remember key elements about the story, including when it occurred or how she came to be at the house party. The Post reports:
​
After so many years, Ford said she does not remember some key details of the incident. She said she believes it occurred in the summer of 1982, when she was 15, around the end of her sophomore year at the all-girls Holton-Arms School in Bethesda. Kavanaugh would have been 17 at the end of his junior year at Georgetown Prep.

White House, Grassley Back Kavanaugh After Accuser Goes Public
 
#1,258
#1,258
lawgator1 said:
I agree the timing is suspicious and is a reason to doubt it. But we aren't the people who vote.

Let's say there is a hearing and this woman convinces people she's telling the truth. The problem is that he says it's not true. So even if it were true and didn't matter, he's denied it. So now it does matter.
Click to expand...
It’s really cute watching you try to sound level headed and rational. I’m guessing you’d like for everybody to consider this new information till say... Nov 7?
 
#1,260
#1,260
lawgator1 said:
I agree the timing is suspicious and is a reason to doubt it. But we aren't the people who vote.

Let's say there is a hearing and this woman convinces people she's telling the truth. The problem is that he says it's not true. So even if it were true and didn't matter, he's denied it. So now it does matter.
Click to expand...

I hope she does agree to testify.

And I hope she puts Feinstein on blast for holding onto it and as the article VB posted said making the #metoo movement into a political weapon.

I sincerely hope it doesn't turn out true for Kavanaugh. By all accounts, he's a pretty respectable judge. And while I'm typically one to think one minor "oh hell" as a younger person likely shouldn't hold a person back, I do NOT think we need such a person on the SCOTUS with such a mark on his record.
 
#1,261
#1,261
Grand Vol said:
I hope she does agree to testify.

And I hope she puts Feinstein on blast for holding onto it and as the article VB posted said making the #metoo movement into a political weapon.

I sincerely hope it doesn't turn out true for Kavanaugh. By all accounts, he's a pretty respectable judge. And while I'm typically one to think one minor "oh hell" as a younger person likely shouldn't hold a person back, I do NOT think we need such a person on the SCOTUS with such a mark on his record.
Click to expand...


It would just be too much. If her description is true.
 
#1,267
#1,267
Grand Vol said:
I hope she does agree to testify.

And I hope she puts Feinstein on blast for holding onto it and as the article VB posted said making the #metoo movement into a political weapon.

I sincerely hope it doesn't turn out true for Kavanaugh. By all accounts, he's a pretty respectable judge. And while I'm typically one to think one minor "oh hell" as a younger person likely shouldn't hold a person back, I do NOT think we need such a person on the SCOTUS with such a mark on his record.
Click to expand...

I agree. The story is out. She is out. Give her the chance to tell her side of it. But give her the option to do it behind closed doors; no media; with the Senate Judiciary Committee. Let her bring anyone she wants to sit by her side for moral support.

Then, ask the right questions. Be fair, be impartial, and be specific. The career and reputation of an otherwise thought to be good man hang in the balance. As does the balance of the Supreme Court. As does the opportunity for a wronged woman to at last, finally, see some measure of justice. If justice...and not just a Supreme Court Justice...has been denied.

Neither one should be allowed to happen. Shine a light on it; let's see what is revealed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TennTom and CABVOL
#1,268
#1,268
GreyWolf1129 said:
I agree. The story is out. She is out. Give her the chance to tell her side of it. But give her the option to do it behind closed doors; no media; with the Senate Judiciary Committee. Let her bring anyone she wants to sit by her side for moral support.

Then, ask the right questions. Be fair, be impartial, and be specific. The career and reputation of an otherwise thought to be good man hang in the balance. As does the balance of the Supreme Court. As does the opportunity for a wronged woman to at last, finally, see some measure of justice. If justice...and not just a Supreme Court Justice...has been denied.

Neither one should be allowed to happen. Shine a light on it; let's see what is revealed.
Click to expand...

I agree a closed door session should be involved. On both sides of that equation.

But you know as well as I do the problem is the "facts" will get twisted around by both sides in such a thing.
 
#1,269
#1,269
lawgator1 said:
I agree the timing is suspicious and is a reason to doubt it. But we aren't the people who vote.

Let's say there is a hearing and this woman convinces people she's telling the truth. The problem is that he says it's not true. So even if it were true and didn't matter, he's denied it. So now it does matter.
Click to expand...

There’s already people convinced she’s telling the truth and they have no idea what she has to say.
Nope. She new the time frame. Everyone did. If she felt it was important she would have pushed the issue weeks ago.

No, at this point it doesn’t matter as her credibility is shot.
 
#1,271
#1,271
Orangeslice13 said:
There’s already people convinced she’s telling the truth and they have no idea what she has to say.
Nope. She new the time frame. Everyone did. If she felt it was important she would have pushed the issue weeks ago.

No, at this point it doesn’t matter as her credibility is shot.
Click to expand...

Did you take a look at my theory on that?
 
#1,273
#1,273
Orangeslice13 said:
Yup. And under your theory she wasn’t upset enough for it to be an issue.
Click to expand...

Question for you then. If such a story about you was leaked and all the sudden you had reporters sniffing around your house, wouldn't you want your side of the story out there? A preemptive strike for lack of a better term before the media went all kinds of crazy making **** up like they typically do?
 
#1,274
#1,274
The problem with the allegation is there's no proof. Not even a corroborating witness. It's simply he says/she says. She doesn't remember key details, and if I read the story correctly, she admits to drinking that day as well.

IF the allegations are true, I am not without sympathy. In the same vein, I'm loathe to see Kavanaugh's career derailed over possibly false accusations.

More than anything, the timing of all of this is just so suspicious. I just wonder how much weight should be given to an allegation that can neither be proven nor disproven?
 
#1,275
#1,275
Grand Vol said:
Question for you then. If such a story about you was leaked and all the sudden you had reporters sniffing around your house, wouldn't you want your side of the story out there? A preemptive strike for lack of a better term before the media went all kinds of crazy making **** up like they typically do?
Click to expand...

If I wrote a letter of this magnatude I wouldn’t have gone with the “leave me out of it” approach. She can tell her side all she wants but it’s now irrelevant to the conversation and shouldn’t be considered in the confirmation hearings. If she wanted it as part of the discussion then she should have made an issue long ago instead of playing a game
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top