Topic: Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh - page 15. (Read 13396 times)

Kim Strassel of the WSJ editorial board is now reporting that a Washington Post "journalist" had reached out to Mr Judge, who was allegedly in the room with Kavanaugh saying that there were 3 boys and one girl at the party in question The Washington Post's story says there were four boys at the party.

Another issue is that there was someone allegedly at the party, Leland Ingham (now Keyser), who is a women who was one of Christine's classmates and close friends. She has said publicly that she does not know Kavanaugh, nor was she ever at any party that Kavanaugh attended. This means that everyone allegedly at the alleged party has denied the existence of the party, under penalty of perjury (or similar), except for Christine Beasley Ford, who appears to not want to speak under oath regarding the alleged incident.  

Spokesman for GOP on Kavanaugh nomination resigns; has been accused of harassment in the past
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/spokesman-gop-kavanaugh-nomination-resigns-has-been-accused-harassment-past-n912156

In addition, if things start to really get out of hand on an everyday-people basis, people will start suing the attackers back for damages when the attacker's case falls through. When this happens, attackers will start to make sure they have a valid case before making accusations.

Kavanaugh is simply a target, and those who are targeting him are desperate. That's why they haven't made sure of themselves ahead of time. Ultimately, Kavanaugh's accusers and attackers will destroy their own integrity.

The media would present it that way, but that's not the way real people think.

Check this out.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/when_the_puppets_wont_cooperate_cnn_surprised_by_womens_reaction_to_kavanaugh_case.html

Soon you will have to have a contract recorded on ze blockchain before you can even look in the direction of a female.

What's even more scary is that any female can now accuse some poor chap of improper behaviour decades down the line and she will be believed and the

lad's fucking toast.


 

Your optimism is cute, but misplaced. This may succeed in delaying the confirmation, but it is going to cost the Democratic party far more. This is why the left is dying and people are flooding to the right. You cut off your own feet to stack them on your head because you think it makes you look taller.

"Cannot be proven he was over 18" means directly "cannot be proven he committed a crime."

Because juvenile offenses are not considered CRIMES. They are handled completely differently.

The things that have been said regarding no statute of limitations for sexual assault do not apply here, those apply for adults. So why are you and I not getting told this? More fake news?


Well, she should just tell them she wants to bicycle across the country.

That would certainly show all those "old white men."

Wait...aren't we talking here about claims by an old white woman?


The virtue signaling .... thickest in the absence of virtue.

In more awesome news for the GOP, Senator Collins was "appalled" by Trumps latest tweet about Dr. Ford and that it was "inappropriate and wrong".

You can rest assured when Collins was answering that question she was speaking directly to the women in Maine who voted for her!

I wonder how far Trump will push Collins and Murkowski lol.

Christine Ford has said that she isn’t sure when the incident happened although she believes it was in ‘82. This is what she says regardless of what Wikipedia says.

If Kavanaugh is tried, he would likely be tried as a minor, who sits on the Supreme Court (or the DC circuit court of appeals). Although there may be a scenario in which it is unclear that the juvenile court has jurisdiction if it can’t be proven he was a minor at the time, and the “adult” court may not have jurisdiction if it cannot be proven he was over 18.

Regardless of the above, he isn’t going to be investigated by the police because Christine hasn’t reported the alleged incident to the police. Without a police investigation he cannot be tried not charged. I believe the reason this hasn’t been reported is because Christine doesn’t want to be charged with filing a false police report (which is a similar reason she doesn’t want to testify).

If there was any truth to what Christine has claimed, she would have filed a police report immediately after she went public at the absolute latest. I disagree with Trump that she *would* have absolutely went to the police when this happened, however there is no longer any reason she would no longer go to the police today because the reasons people don’t go to the police after these types of incidents no longer apply.

I have read a report that Christine doesn’t want to fly from CA to DC to testify and therefore must make the drive. If this is true, it would only be one more piece of evidence that shows this was intended to move the vote past the midterms.

According to Wikipedia it happened in the summer of 1982, which would put Kavanaugh's age at the alleged event's time at 17. He was a juvenile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford
alleging that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in the summer of 1982 when she was 15 and he was 17.

For this to even be a crime, the DA would have had to plea to a judge to move it to criminal court, and to treat him as an adult.

Without that it's just an event for juvenile court, if anything.

Well, where does this stop?

Should we hear about something he did when he was 16?

15?

14?

13?

12?

8?

4?

This is very confused. (of course purposefully as you note).

Either it is a criminal complaint or it is not. If it is it goes to the state level not the FBI. They have NO INVOLVEMENT in state crimes.

Either you have a 30+ year old crime in a state with no statute of limitations or you don't. If you don't have a complaint that can be taken to the DA you don't have a crime. Period.

Except that's not what this is about and you know it. It's about stalling or stopping the Kavanaugh nomination. This requires creating doubt. That in turn does not require truth, only allegations. That's what we have here, unsubstantiated allegations for a reason completely other than justice for a past wrong.

So...

Is it right to be in with the witch hunt?

Except that this isn't a criminal proceeding.  You do know the FBI does background investigations on someone being nominated to the highest court in the land right?  You do know that many times the FBI has re-opened background investigations based on new allegations right?  Specifically the FBI re-opened the background investigation into Clarence Thomas when Anita Hill came forward with her allegations, which again in an ironic twist had senate republicans demanding an FBI investigation into the new claims (some of those senators still sit on the committee today).  That investigation lasted 2 days.


Really, digging through someone's life based on statements is literally a major part of a background investigation, they need to be corroborated or exculpated that's literally what an investigation is. Before nominating a person for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land this always happens and Kavanaugh has had them before.


And the presidents    but obstruction of justice is one of Trumps specialties!!!

BTW as it turns out there is no statute of limitations in Maryland for this alleged crime and no reason why a sitting judge on the SC can't be indicted.

What is a shame is how bad this is being handled by both sides it seems to me American politicians have learned nothing in the 27 years since Anita Hill and both sides of the aisle should be ashamed with their behavior.

On top of that the American people IMO should be furious with their politicians who have created this hyper-politicized environment overall not specifically this noms hearing.  It isn't healthy when the goal of each party is their own interests and not the interest of truth and the American people!

That's not how the criminal justice system works. You file a criminal report (ideally not 30 years late), and you provide the appropriate law enforcement agency with as much information and evidence as you can provide. The standard protocol for filing a criminal report is making an official statement. If there is no report, no statement, no evidence, there is no investigation. You don't get to demand the FBI go dig through some ones life just based on statements alone. That is their discretion, and right now, because of the lack of any substantial evidence or an official report they would be doing little more than interfering with the confirmation process.

Of course interference is what some people are seeking. Also filing a false report is a crime. So naturally anyone making false accusations would avoid making an official report to authorities. Considering the accusation itself would achieve the goals intended by making a false accusation, it matters little and she will never be held accountable. Women who are proven to make false accusations of sexual assault or rape rarely are.

I was listening to the Radio today (Rush Limbaugh) and it was suggested that Mitt Romney was considering appointing Kavanaugh to the SC, and that Christine Ford's couples counseling session notes may have been inspired by this in an effort to torpedo his nomination in the event that Romney got elected. I tried to confirm this via a google search today, and was unable to confirm any articles from the 2012 election cycle confirming this, however there may have been whispers within legal circles at the time suggesting this.

It appears that Christine Beasley Ford is reluctant to testify under oath, and to my knowledge she has not reported the alleged incident to law enforcement. This is important because both lying under oath and lying to law enforcement is a crime, while lying to a friendly new organization is not. The worse that Christine is liable for is libel, which is difficult to prove, given the circumstances (although if Kavanaugh did sue her for libel, in an ironic twist of events, he may be the second Kavanaugh to be in a position to foreclose on a Beasley house).

I don't expect Christine Beasley Ford to testify, however in the unlikely event that she does, I expect that holes (specifically contradictions) will quickly be found in her testimony, and Kavanaugh will end up getting confirmed.

An interesting aspect of this matter is the obvious ease with which this event slides into peoples' belief sets, one way or the other, and without hardly any facts they are ready to argue it. In a interesting turn, that the Dems have to go this far back and present a case that's this weak actually shows the good character of the nominee. They are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel to find faults here.

In a better and wiser time and place the rule here would be "Let him who is without fault cast the first stone." But we're not in such a time and place. This is a pure and raw attempt to gain power and to not lose additional power.

It's an all out effort to prevent a 6-3 conservative to liberal Supreme Court.

I'm not so worried about that because the SC judges have shown that they don't vote and think as people thought they would. At least that's true of the supposedly conservative ones. Think - Roberts.

But it's clear that it would be very frightening to the so-called liberal. Of course that means he's been told this would be frightening and believed it, doesn't mean it would really be. It's not just a looming 6-3 but with Ginsburg on her way out, quite likely the court will go 7-2. And that's just the way it seems it will be. 30-50 years of a court that won't bow to the demands of "liberals" who in reality are pushing fascist and totalitarian, anti-constitutional agendas, often for corrupt interests or interests outside of the US.

In the upcoming mid terms, expect total corruption on the part of the Democrats. Fake ballot boxes being found everywhere, any and everything to be done to try to gain congressional and senate seats. As usual, Republicans to win have to win "above the bounds of stuffed and fraudulent ballots".

Christine Blasey Ford said in her Washington Post interview that she gave all the details she can remember and that she has nothing further to add. As it stands now, Christine has not spoken to the FBI about the incident, nor has she given any details of the incident under oath, both of which, she must tell the truth, or else be breaking the law. All that hearing her testimony would do is give Senators the opportunity to potentially find her less credible. Other than her stating her claims under oath, there isn't anything she can do to booster her side of the story.


I don't think we will see the same circus that we saw in the previous hearings, as I suspect either they will not be public, or an outside counsel will ask the questions rather than the senators. All of what you mention will likely be brought up though.

The lie detector polygraph test does not prove anything, assuming she was not lying, all it potentially shows is that she believes what she said, however it also possible to "beat" a polygraph even if you knowingly lie. My understanding of the specific polygraph test she took is that she stated that she believes a summary statement of her allegation is true, and I am not sure about other details in regards to how the test was conducted to look for inconsistencies, such as the measurement of baselines for both telling the truth, and for her being scarred.

The notes from the therapist (which were recorded contemporaneously with her conversation with her therapist, indicating they are an accurate reflection of the conversation, unless the therapist is otherwise shown to be unreliable) reflect that Christine said the incident involved 4 boys, not the two she is now claiming. This changed detail is only going to make her a less reliable witness. She also described the people responsible for the incident very broadly.

The reason why democrats want to delay the vote until after the midterms is because Democrats running for reelection in "red" states are under pressure to vote to confirm him by their constituents. Thus far, they have not committed one way or another. These democrats will have a lot of pressure to vote to confirm Kavanaugh even if only 47-49 Republicans are voting yes.


Generally speaking, people who commit these types of crimes are repeat offenders, and it is unusual for there to only be exactly one accuser decades after the fact.

Actually she will not. She has already said she doesn't remember what year the alleged incident occurred, how she got to the party, who else was at the party, or how she left the party. She doesn't even know where this happened other than it was in Montgomery County, MD, which is where she lived at the time.

If you are referring to Roe being overturned, then I would say that Roe was wrongly decided as the right to an abortion is no where to be found in the constitution. I don't think it will be overturned because of stare decisis. My opinion on abortion is off topic for this thread, however if the country believes this is an important right, then the country should amend the constitution (after making the case to other voters this is the right thing to do) to explicitly allow for abortions.

This is a very interesting detail, and IMO should be empathized. I believe it is evidence that she was planning on coming forward at the last minute as she did, and she wanted some credibility when she did.

 
Christine, through her Democrat activist lawyer has said she will not testify before the FBI investigates her accusation. The FBI does not have jurisdiction over the incident as there is no allegation of a federal crime, and I have heard reports that the Montgomery County, MD police is not investigating because they have not received a complaint about the incident by Christine.

The records she has is notes from her therapist describing an incident involving a different number of boys she is not claiming were involved. The notes, and conversation were over 30 years after the alleged incident, and do not mention Kavanaugh by name. She also did not tell any of her friends about the alleged incident for over 3 decades after the alleged incident. She does not know most of the relevant details surrounding the incident. If anything, this is a substantially weaker case than usual. 

I don't think there is enough time for her to be nominated, and sufficiently vetted in a way that will result in her getting 50 votes before the midterms. The senate can hold a vote 5 minutes after she is nominated, however I believe many senators will be hesitant to vote for someone for a lifetime appointment to our country's highest court without looking into her closely for several months.

The other person the Christine Beasley Ford claimed to be in the room described her allegation as "nonsense" and that such an incident never happened. There is not even evidence that the three of them were ever at a party together, and her lack of details make it difficult to outright disprove her story.


What evidence is there, exactly? There is a single uncorroborated, unspecific accusation by someone with political motivations to block the nomination, who went public with her claims at the politically best time. Both of the witnesses to the alleged incident have denied the incident took place. The WSJ editorial board argued that the evidence does not even warrant additional hearing, and they are right.

One person is making an unsubstantiated claim about something from 35 years ago, that she told no one about for over 30 years, and two people say it didn't happen.

Grassley sets Friday deadline to hear back from Kavanaugh accuser
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/19/politics/kavanaugh-ford-grassley-judiciary-committee-supreme-court/index.html

Yes that letter of yours actually has over 1000 signatures now. Looks like it was sent out to alumni of Holton-Arms school who graduated between 1962-2018.

Alumnae from Christine Blasey Ford’s high school sign letter saying they support her
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/18/17869998/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-holton-arms

The difference between these two is that the first is a letter signed by 65 women who know Kavanaugh personally and over time and were willing to attest to his character. The second is a letter signed by 1000 women none of whom have ever met Kavanaugh and most of whom have never met Ms. Ford.

We will have to leave it to the readers to determine how to weigh these two pieces of data.

Not only would it be highly unusual it's simply not realistic here, can he do that, technically sure.  Even McConnell knows as partisan as the senate is a lot more than 2 republican senators will have a pretty major issue not letting reasonable due process happen for a SCOTUS nomination...  While the republicans hold a majority it is literally the smallest majority possible so McConnell knows he has to be extremely careful.  McConnell even told Trump Kavanaugh was going to be a hard guy to sell even with senate majority.

No one is talking about a senate vote for another nominee before MT's.



That's a cute article I have one as well and this one has 200.  200>65 since you like to bold out how many people have signed a letter!


https://www.bustle.com/p/women-from-christine-blasey-fords-high-school-are-supporting-her-in-a-pointed-letter-11940759

How 65 women came to Kavanaugh’s defense in matter of hours
https://www.apnews.com/1f7e47de5ce340f7b4cab8e92ef91cf0