Attempted Rapist to be appointed to Supreme Court?

by Original Quill Thu Sep 20, 2018 4:08 pm

First topic message reminder :

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a clinical psychologist and professor at the University of Palo Alto, just south of here, has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of attacking her and attempting to rape her at a party when they were younger. Judge Kavanaugh, of the DC Circuit Court, is up for an opening on the Supreme Court at present.

Both Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh attended toney private schools in Washington DC, and the schools (Boys School and Girls School) often held joint parties. At one such affair, Kavanaugh and another man kidnapped Dr. Ford, threw her into a bedroom, and on the bed attempted an sexual assault of her. Judge Kavanaugh, when younger, had acquired a reputation for drunkenness and lewd behavior when intoxicated.

The following is an article:

The Independent wrote:Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford 'receiving vicious harassment and death threats'

Emily Shugerman
The Independent•September 19, 2018

The California psychology professor who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault is reportedly receiving death threats, as Donald Trump says he will make a decision on his nominee based on her testimony.

The professor, 51-year-old Christine Blasey Ford, has accused Mr Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a party when they were both in high school. Mr Kavanugh has categorically denied the allegations.

In the days since Ms Blasey Ford’s name was made public, her attorneys said, her “worst fears have materialised”.

“She has been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats,” attorneys Debra Katz and Lisa Banks wrote in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley.

“As a result of these kind of threats, her family was forced to relocate out of their home,” they added. “Her email has been hacked and she has been impersonated online.”

The attorneys asked for an FBI investigation of Ms Blasey Ford’s allegations before she was called to testify publicly in front of the Senate committee. Mr Grassley had previously scheduled a televised hearing on the allegations for Monday.

Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon said on Wednesday that it would be “wonderful” if the professor appeared in front of the committee.

“Look, if she shows up and makes a credible showing, that will be very interesting and we’ll have to make a decision,” he told reporters outside the White House.

But Ms Blasey Ford’s attorneys pushed back on the Monday deadline, saying the accuser’s life was “being turned upside down”, and chiding Mr Grassley for suggesting she relive a “traumatic and harrowing incident” at the same table as Mr Kavanaugh.

Democrats quickly spoke out in support of the professor’s wishes, saying the hearing should be delayed until a full investigation could be completed.

“That this brave woman is receiving death threats and has been forced to flee with her family is appalling and heartbreaking,” Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the judiciary committee, said in a statement. “This abuse must stop. We’re better than this.”

But Republicans were reluctant to delay the hearing, which could push a vote on Mr Kavanaugh’s confirmation until after the contentious midterm elections. Some pointed to a statement from the Justice Department that noted Ms Blasey Ford’s allegation does not concern a federal crime, and that the FBI “does not make any judgement about the credibility or significance of any allegation”.

Mr Grassley said on Tuesday that the hearing should proceed, regardless of whether or not Ms Blasey Ford decided to testify.

“The invitation for Monday still stands. Dr Ford’s testimony would reflect her personal knowledge and memory of events,” the chairman said. “Nothing the FBI or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay.”

Meanwhile, in Ms Blasey Ford’s hometown of Palo Alto, a group of local mothers had gathered together to support their friend. Kirsten Leimroth, whose daughters are part of the same junior lifeguard programme as Ms Blasey Ford’s two sons, said it was “preposterous” to think the professor had invented the allegations for political reasons.

“There’s absolutely no way it’s made up. She can’t even go home,” Ms Leimroth told the Mercury News. “She had to have her kids stay somewhere else. She had to shut down all social media. Why would she do that?”

So many sexual assaults, so little time. Attempted Rapist to be appointed to Supreme Court? - Page 5 2190311264

What is it with Donald Trump, that he is involved with so many rapes, child rapes and random sexual contacts with women? Wasn't it just last year when some 18-women told of his habit of "pussy-grabbing"? Indeed, in October, 2016, he boasted on the Access Hollywood tape how much he liked to "grab pussy".

But, it's also a part of Trump's circle of friends. Last year, Trump supported for the Alabama Senate seat, one Roy Moore, who was accused of attempted child rape earlier when he was a younger lawyer. Additionally, the White House had to terminate one Ron Porter, secretary to Mr. Trump, for not one, but two wives who came forward with claims of spousal beating...one brought pictures!!

Busy, busy.

by Original Quill Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:22 pm

The FBI announced today that it is planning to interview Professor Luddington:

NBC News wrote:Yale classmate to tell FBI of Brett Kavanaugh's 'violent drunken' behavior

The FBI's contact with Charles Ludington, a classmate of Brett Kavanaugh at Yale, is a new development in its background investigation.

by Peter Alexander, Ken Dilanian and Adam Edelman / Oct.01.2018

WASHINGTON — Charles Ludington, a classmate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh at Yale University, will provide information to the FBI on Monday, he confirmed to NBC News.

News of Ludington's involvement was first reported by The Washington Post, which said he planned to give a statement to the FBI at its field office in Raleigh, North Carolina, "detailing violent drunken behavior by Kavanaugh in college."

In a copy of his statement given to The Post, Ludington, a professor at North Carolina State University, described Kavanaugh as a "belligerent and aggressive" drunk.

"On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man's face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail," the statement said.

During his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Kavanaugh was repeatedly asked about his drinking habits in high school and college and denied having a problem.

In his statement, however, Ludington wrote that "if he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences."

On Sunday, a member of Ford's legal team told NBC News that Christine Blasey Ford, one of Kavanaugh's accusers, and her lawyers have not been contacted by the FBI in the days since Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon ordered on Friday a supplemental FBI background investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations she and others have made against Kavanaugh.

A senior U.S. official confirms to NBC News that the White House counsel's office directed the FBI to interview the following witness list of four: Kavanaugh friends Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth, Leland Keyser, a friend of Ford's who Ford says was at the party, and Deborah Ramirez, who accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her when they were both students at Yale University.

While the FBI will examine the allegations of Ford and Ramirez, Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s, isn't on the list of those to be interviewed by the agency, people familiar with the investigation told NBC News.

Nothing prevents the FBI from talking to witnesses who come forward, such as Ludington. But it's not clear what, if anything, the FBI can do with the information he provides, given that Kavanaugh's drinking at Yale is not an issue the White House has authorized the FBI to investigate.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, an undecided vote on Kavanaugh who supported calls for a renewed FBI investigation, told NBC News in a statement Monday that she is "confident that the FBI will follow up on any leads that result from the interviews."

Contributors: Leigh Ann Caldwell

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/kavanaugh-classmate-tell-fbi-nominee-s-violent-drunken-behavior-college-n915326

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/national-news/ap-top-news/-brett-has-not-told-the-truth-nc-state-professor-says-college-classmate-was-heavy-drinker/844407621

by Guest Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:00 pm

Lie number 9

No where does it say the FBI is planning to interview Professor Democrat

by Original Quill Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:51 am

Didge wrote:Charles Ludington, a classmate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh at Yale University, will provide information to the FBI on Monday, he confirmed to NBC News.

News of Ludington's involvement was first reported by The Washington Post, which said he planned to give a statement to the FBI at its field office in Raleigh, North Carolina, "detailing violent drunken behavior by Kavanaugh in college."

Dishonesty?

by Guest Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:14 am

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Charles Ludington, a classmate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh at Yale University, will provide information to the FBI on Monday, he confirmed to NBC News.

News of Ludington's involvement was first reported by The Washington Post, which said he planned to give a statement to the FBI at its field office in Raleigh, North Carolina, "detailing violent drunken behavior by Kavanaugh in college."

Dishonesty?

Original Quill wrote:The FBI announced today that it is planning to interview Professor Luddington:

Like I said, lie number 9

Giving a statement to the FBI himself, is not the FBI planning to interview Professor Democrat

Hence lie number 9 by you

The FBI made no such announcement

You made that up, yet again

by Original Quill Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:02 pm

Didge wrote:Giving a statement to the FBI himself, is not the FBI planning to interview Professor Democrat

Attempted Rapist to be appointed to Supreme Court? - Page 5 3489511464

That's the weakest semantic argument I've ever heard. Rolling Eyes

Besides being untrue. The FBI do not wait around for people to walk in with suggestions. If they are ordered to investigate, they go get the witnesses.

by Guest Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:07 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Giving a statement to the FBI himself, is not the FBI planning to interview Professor Democrat

That's the weakest semantic argument I've ever heard.

Besides being untrue. The FBI do not wait around for people to walk in with suggestions. If they are ordered to investigate, they go get the witnesses.

Attempted Rapist to be appointed to Supreme Court? - Page 5 2Q==

Hence you still lied, they were not looking to interview him

He sought them out

Lie number 9

by Original Quill Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:28 pm

Harvard University has terminated Brett Kavenaugh from it's faculty:

Huffington Post wrote:Harvard Says Kavanaugh Won’t Be Teaching His Supreme Court Class In January

The embattled Supreme Court nominee has been teaching the class on the high court’s modern history since 2009.

By Ashley Feinberg

Harvard Law School head John F. Manning informed students last week that, although he couldn’t say whether Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh would still be teaching his January class, called The Supreme Court Since 2005, the school was still taking its students’ concerns seriously. But now the school has told students that Kavanaugh’s course, which he’s been teaching since 2009, would not be offered in 2019.

Harvard Law students haven’t received any other information about the cancellation yet, but one student reported “tons of speculation right now.”

It’s unclear if the class will ever be offered again, though Kavanaugh’s faculty page now redirects to the general faculty directory. You can still find his original page on the Internet Archive.

Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court has been put on hold in the Senate while the FBI investigates claims of sexual misconduct from the 1980s.

HuffPost has reached out to Harvard for comment and will update this article if and when we hear back.

Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here’s how.

by Guest Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:58 pm

is it starting to unravel?

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/03/nolte-new-evidence-eliminates-christine-blasey-fords-residual-credibility/

by Guest Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:42 pm

gelico wrote:

is it starting to unravel?

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/03/nolte-new-evidence-eliminates-christine-blasey-fords-residual-credibility/

Only the Mail so far has taken this up. Why the silence from the other main media?

Like I say, orchestrated to be trial by media, after knowing the success of the "Me Too Movement"

If this is true, the Democrats are going to lose big on this and people will lose trust in them

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6235637/Ex-boyfriend-Christine-Ford-says-WASNT-afraid-flying-closed-spaces.html

by Original Quill Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:09 am

Trump ridicules a rape victim:

Republicans applaud.

by Lurker Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:36 am

Original Quill wrote:Trump ridicules a rape victim:

Republicans applaud.

Trump is the lowest piece of shit scum to ever crawl out of a sewer. There is no human who has ever lived as lowlife as this orange headed piece of excrement.

by 'Wolfie Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:12 am

Original Quill wrote:Trump ridicules a rape victim:

Republicans applaud.

That soulless and morals-free sub-group of far-right wing Repub' neanderthals are the very essence of the real world support for the Dumpster's administration...

Mock sexual assault victims; mock disabled persons; mock poor people..
Anti-welfare; anti-charity; anti-minimum wages; anti- "fair trade"..
Pro-exploitation; pro-discrimination; pro-nepotism; pro-slavery..
Climate denialists; white supremacists..

I can just imagine the Stormees, Smellys and NITwits of this world being right at home amongst that miserable self-serving mob.

by Vintage Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:20 pm

I have to say I don't know much about this so bear with me can someone give me the short version on:
This man is accused of attempted rape in High School and only now she brings this up?
Are there any allegations since about him for attempted rape or rape or sexual assault or any illegal act at all?
Apparently he's already a judge, so why didn't she bring this up when he was made a judge?

by Lurker Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:12 pm

by Original Quill Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:08 am

Vintage wrote:I have to say I don't know much about this so bear with me can someone give me the short version on:
This man is accused of attempted rape in High School and only now she brings this up?

Apparently, she didn't want her parents to know she was at a beer party. She was 15-years old, and had a 15-year old’s priorities. She was more afraid of her parents, and didn't know the seriousness of rape.

Vintage wrote:Are there any allegations since about him for attempted rape or rape or sexual assault or any illegal act at all?

Yes, several other allegations have come up. And there are witnesses as well. Kavannaugh is an alcoholic, and many of his sexual escapades happened while drinking heavily. Not to say all alcoholics are sex maniacs, but it is a proven fact that alcohol greatly reduces inhibitions. In his case, the absence of inhibitions took a deviant sexual bent.

Why didn't the FBI find this out? The FBI was instructed by the White House that they could only interview specific witnesses...and not to raise, or look into other incidents. That is one of the issues...the recall of the investigators was a fraud...more for appearance, than for untethered investigation.

Vintage wrote:Apparently he's already a judge, so why didn't she bring this up when he was made a judge?

The occasion to bring it up didn't publicly arise until Kavanaugh was nominated for the Supreme Court. His appointment to the DC Circuit was without fanfare, and living 3000-miles away, Dr. Ford was unaware of the fact.

Dr. Ford's purpose is not to go after Kavanaugh criminally, civilly, or otherwise, but to bring up facts that are pertinent to his nomination to the Supreme Court...which only happened in July. Her purpose is quite specific and does not extend to other areas. There's no reason to suspect she is out to get Kavanaugh, except that she opposes his appointment and feels it is her civic duty to report facts of which she is aware.

As far as any criminal activity is concerned, there is no statute of limitations for attempted rape in Maryland, and it's up to the Montgomery County, not Dr. Ford, to bring charges. Any criminal matter is on behalf of the state, not a victim witness. If Montgomery County wants to pursue the matter, it is it's prerogative to do so. Likewise, if any state Bar Association wants to revoke Kavanaugh''s license to practice law, it may do so.

I think people have the impression that because criminal charges could be brought, more is at stake than the candidate's suitability rating. It's a job interview, that's all. Anything else is totally up to others. Dr. Ford reports this matter only to advise the Senate of a matter bearing on Kavanaugh's suitability for the Supreme Court.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:21 am

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a Republican, says that after listening to the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh, he does not think that he, Kavanaugh, has the impartiality to sit on the Supreme Court.

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:28 am

They are going to swear Kavanaugh in shortly

The FBI report did not corroborate any of the allegations made by Dr Ford against Brett Kavanaugh
12 years unblemished record serving
All of the witnesses identified by ford and remirez have testified to the contrary to what ford pledged.
The witnesses who were allegedly present at certain events have completely refuted this

oh well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5bogm15OUk

by Original Quill Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:08 am

gelico wrote:

They are going to swear Kavanaugh in shortly

The FBI report did not corroborate any of the allegations made by Dr Ford against Brett Kavanaugh
12 years unblemished record serving
All of the witnesses identified by ford and remirez have testified to the contrary to what ford pledged.
The witnesses who were allegedly present at certain events have completely refuted this

oh well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5bogm15OUk

There are over 40 witnesses that the White House has ordered the FBI not to interview. That's quite a whitewash. The so-called "unblemished record" of Mr. Kavanaugh has received quite a few blemishes. The witnesses who "refute" have been found to be lying, or simply obstructing.

This is not the end of it. It is expected that the Dems will come into office after November, so expect impeachment hearings against Kavenaugh next year.

The Supreme Court has lost the luster. When the Dems get a president in 2022, and with a majority in Congress and the Senate, the Dems will introduce a bill to pack the Court (increase the number of justices). The Constitution does not state how many should sit on the Supreme Court, so packing the Court with more justices by a Democratic president should overrule the present Court by numbers.

Since the Constitution also says nothing about the structure of the US judiciary, it may be possible, through a new US Judiciary Act, to create an intermediary higher appellate court that can drain all business off of the Supreme Court, particularly Constitutional questions. Then, under the 'Exceptions and Regulations' clause, the Congress will limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, rendering it's business nugatory:

US Constitution, Art. III, sec 2 wrote:...the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make

We simply state that all questions of law and fact are "exceptions" to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. They will simply be collecting a paycheck, but have no business. We can create legal plumbing that will effectively bypass the Supreme Court, and return the country to normalcy.

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:40 am

Utter gibberish Quill

The witnesses you speak of are like people who are experts in fields

Not actual witnesses to events

The FBI did interviews with those who were stated by the claimants to the claimed events and not one corroborates the claims and you have the audacity to call them all liars. Including one who is a friend to Dr Ford

As I said before this should have been based on his views, which I stand opposed on. Not this poor and contrived smear campaign by the democrats

The campaign should have been on perceived bias and his policies

Not a witch hunt and trial by media, which has backfired on the Democrats

Not one of the claimants would have their claims taken on by an prosecution

by veya_victaous Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:22 am

Attempted Rapist to be appointed to Supreme Court? - Page 5 Db8e8a634264519158fddb27dbed5829

the Headline sums up everything wrong withe the USA currently

by Lurker Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:39 pm

by Original Quill Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:50 pm

Didge wrote:The FBI did interviews with those who were stated by the claimants to the claimed events and not one corroborates the claims and you have the audacity to call them all liars. Including one who is a friend to Dr Ford

I think you mean: "... those who were stated by the claimants to [be witnesses of] the claimed events..." Otherwise your statement has no verb, and is unintelligible.

Assuming that is what you meant, I think anyone can see right away that it was a rigged investigation. What if they uncover a murder?...to use a bizarre example. To limit an investigative agency by telling the investigators what is to be included (only), is to tell them what is to be arbitrarily excluded. Clearly, the FBI was not allowed to follow it's own lead.

The FBI should have been given questions, not constrained to witnesses or scenarios: (1) is Kavanaugh an alcoholic; (2) is he given to abusing women; (3) did he lie to Congress (a felony)? To limit him to scenarios and witnesses, is to label his other crimes acceptable. At a moment when the United States risks being called a lawless nation at the top, it is extremely dangerous to appoint a judicial arbitrator at the very apex, who is a obviously lawless person.

Didge wrote:The campaign should have been on perceived bias and his policies

Well put. For example, how is a justice who is a abuser of women going to vote on the abortion, or (as it is known) the Roe v. Wade issue.

Indeed, isn't Kavanaugh also going to be more lenient on issues of rape/abuse of women overall? All the issues raised by the Me-Too movement, Kavanaugh might well view as ‘mere horseplay’ or ‘boys-will-be-boys’. Veritably, the issue is right before our eyes: the Supreme Court may well see the Bill Cosby case come before it on some constitutional issue...could Cosby get off on some technicality crafted by Kavanaugh?

Same questions regarding alcoholism.

Finally, most important on your list of "perceived bias and ... policies" is his revealed bias in his tirade on Thursday last, before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrats against him? Clinton's revenge? Left wing conspiracy? Here is one whole side (Democrats) of the major political division of the nation, against which he has confessed a fundamental bias. What more could you want to politicize the Supreme Court?

So, now you see the 'why' for my discussion (above post) about creating a by-pass court to render the Supreme Court inconsequential. The Supreme Court is already just another political football. We need a fair and unbiased judicial system, and the Supreme Court no longer fits the bill.

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:24 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:The FBI did interviews with those who were stated by the claimants to the claimed events and not one corroborates the claims and you have the audacity to call them all liars. Including one who is a friend to Dr Ford

I think you mean: "... those who were stated by the claimants to [be witnesses of] the claimed events..." Otherwise your statement has no verb, and is unintelligible.

Assuming that is what you meant, I think anyone can see right away that it was a rigged investigation. What if they uncover a murder?...to use a bizarre example. To limit an investigative agency by telling the investigators what is to be included (only), is to tell them what is to be arbitrarily excluded. Clearly, the FBI was not allowed to follow it's own lead.

The FBI should have been given questions, not constrained to witnesses or scenarios: (1) is Kavanaugh an alcoholic; (2) is he given to abusing women; (3) did he lie to Congress (a felony)? To limit him to scenarios and witnesses, is to label his other crimes acceptable. At a moment when the United States risks being called a lawless nation at the top, it is extremely dangerous to appoint a judicial arbitrator at the very apex, who is a obviously lawless person.

Didge wrote:The campaign should have been on perceived bias and his policies

Well put. For example, how is a justice who is a abuser of women going to vote on the abortion, or (as it is known) the Roe v. Wade issue.

Indeed, isn't Kavanaugh also going to be more lenient on issues of rape/abuse of women overall? All the issues raised by the Me-Too movement, Kavanaugh might well view as ‘mere horseplay’ or ‘boys-will-be-boys’. Veritably, the issue is right before our eyes: the Supreme Court may well see the Bill Cosby case come before it on some constitutional issue...could Cosby get off on some technicality crafted by Kavanaugh?

Same questions regarding alcoholism.

Finally, most important on your list of "perceived bias and ... policies" is his revealed bias in his tirade on Thursday last, before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrats against him? Clinton's revenge? Left wing conspiracy? Here is one whole side (Democrats) of the major political division of the nation, against which he has confessed a fundamental bias. What more could you want to politicize the Supreme Court?

So, now you see the 'why' for my discussion (above post) about creating a by-pass court to render the Supreme Court inconsequential. The Supreme Court is already just another political football. We need a fair and unbiased judicial system, and the Supreme Court no longer fits the bill.

Man alive you are so biased, that now you think the FBI. Who conducted witness statements. From the very people from the two claimants. Who had witnessed the supposed evets. That you still are in denial. Where even one of them is a friend of Dr Ford

Let me make this very clear to you

Nobody has corroborated their claims

The other witnesses that each claimant claimed to have. Where experts in lie dectectors. Which is a crock, judging that Dr Ford, is a Doctor in psychology and her ex-boyfriend has specified she has heled someone know how to beat this test.

That her other witnesses were people she claimed to have told about this claimed sexual assualt, through therapy and her husband. Which as seen her story conflicts with the original therapoy sessions and the media reports she gave herself, to then the statement she gave at the hearing

The other clown that made claims, has again no witnesses to back her story. She gave names and they have been interviews and none of them back her story

This shows to me you are incapable of being impartial. You simple took some stories at face valued and not based on you even believeing them, but off a rancid hate you have of Republicans. There was nothing impartial in any of your views here and throughout you constantly lied

A real trait of a lawyer, how to bullshit

Now you could say the same of Judge Kavannuagh. How again I do not agree with his views on many things, espcially abortion, but, there was nothing to back the claims made against him and even more. After knowing how the Democrats knew way before about Dr Ford's claims and then it was leaked. Proves this was orchestrated by the Democrats.

They tried to undermine the Democratic system of voting in a Supreme Cout judge

That shows how far the Democrats have fallen to the same poor tribal level of the Republicans

by Original Quill Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:15 pm

Didge wrote:Man alive you are so biased, that now you think the FBI.

I don't follow what you are saying, as you are wont to drop subjects and verbs in your sentence formation.

However, if you are of the opinion that I criticize the FBI, you are wrong. I have carefully mentioned the White House as the agent here. The basic client of the FBI is the Senate, but we know from the history of the issue that the WH is calling the shots. It is the WH that commands the mission given to the FBI.

The WH has skillfully rigged the mission given to the FBI. It’s actually a very common Republican ploy: appear to be one thing, while in fact being another thing. I think we are beyond questioning whether the investigation mission was rigged, so the only question is who did it. I'm not at all blaming the FBI. They can only do as much as the client asks for...and we are all can see--even if we are not agreed--what the client asked for was too little, too late, and all in the wrong direction.

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:19 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Man alive you are so biased, that now you think the FBI.

I don't follow what you are saying, as you are wont to drop subjects and verbs in your sentence formation.

However, if you are of the opinion that I criticize the FBI, you are wrong. I have carefully mentioned the White House as the agent here. The basic client of the FBI is the Senate, but we know from the history of the issue that the WH is calling the shots. It is the WH that commands the mission given to the FBI.

The WH has skillfully rigged the mission given to the FBI. I think we are beyond questioning whether the investigation mission was rigged, so the only question is who did it. I'm not at all blaming the FBI. They can only do as much as the client asks for...and we are all can see--even if we are not agreed--what the client asked for was too little, too late, and all in the wrong direction.

Explain to me how a Jury would not find Judge Kavannugh not guilty?

Based off there is no corroborating witnesses to the event and she even gave 4 names

One is her friend

None claimed to have been at such a party all together

No jury would convict him

by Original Quill Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:46 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I don't follow what you are saying, as you are wont to drop subjects and verbs in your sentence formation.

However, if you are of the opinion that I criticize the FBI, you are wrong. I have carefully mentioned the White House as the agent here. The basic client of the FBI is the Senate, but we know from the history of the issue that the WH is calling the shots. It is the WH that commands the mission given to the FBI.

The WH has skillfully rigged the mission given to the FBI. I think we are beyond questioning whether the investigation mission was rigged, so the only question is who did it. I'm not at all blaming the FBI. They can only do as much as the client asks for...and we are all can see--even if we are not agreed--what the client asked for was too little, too late, and all in the wrong direction.

Explain to me how a Jury would not find Judge Kavannugh not guilty?

Based off there is no corroborating witnesses to the event and she even gave 4 names

One is her friend

None claimed to have been at such a party all together

No jury would convict him

It's not a criminal case. It's a job interview. In that sense, the scope reaches much more into the general moral and social realm. How would any of us conduct such a job interview(?): does he lie(?); does he get along with others(?): does he have a problem with alcohol(?); does he have an harassment/abuse problem with women(?); race (?); can he work well with co-workers [Democrats](?).

Instead to directing the investigation to the proper general questions, the WH has got the FBI off and chasing a limited look into a single event, without even questioning the two people involved. As I've said repeatedly, you can't generalize from specifics.

The Republicans are using the same bait-and-switch tactics you see in all politics: appear to be one thing, while in fact doing another thing. The WH wants to create the impression that they are doing something called an "investigation". In fact they are instructing the investigators to go in the wrong direction, and ask the wrong questions. Look over there; not over here! It’s a contrived diversion, something that Trump is very good at.

by Guest Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:57 pm

Here we go again

So you admit that there is no criminal case then

So what has that got to do with his job interview?

Seriously?

If its a job interview, are you going to stop someone getting a job, based on uncorroborated claims?

Not once throughtout this have you condemned the Democrats that held onto the claim and then leaked it. To have a trial by media.

Because you ae breaking one of the fundemental rules of job interviews.

You are trying to apply discrimination

If he was black, homosexual, Muslim etc, you would be screaming from the roof tops to defend their rights, and I would back you.

Yet because he is a Republican, you think that disqualifies him from being a Surpreme Judge

That means you do not qualify as being part of a free democratic society

You want to enforce your views

by Lurker Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:45 pm

Republicans tend to love and vote for the dregs of society. The bigger the scumbag the better republicans love them. (Trump is the prime example).

by Original Quill Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:03 pm

Lurker wrote:Republicans tend to love and vote for the dregs of society. The bigger the scumbag the better republicans love them. (Trump is the prime example).

Agreed. That didn't used to be the case, but something has happened to reverse the trend. Currently, the White House is controlled by an organized crime family, and the Supreme Court will be controlled by a couple of serial rapists. And, so far, the Congress and Senate are willing lapdogs to the Trump White House.

This is no exaggeration or distortion...we, the public, have just not kept up. The altered state has crept up on us in the same way that Trump's election crept up on us. Our world is full of surprises, we have yet to learn.

by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:24 pm

Democrats have unleashed a red wave of Brett Kavanaugh-believing women voters

The extreme left of the Democratic Party may celebrate leaders’ no-holds-bar attempt to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation, but swing suburban moms are appalled by the Democrats’ ill-use of Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick.

In Ford, women saw a distraught and damaged woman paraded before the Senate, her privacy in tatters, because her sexual assault allegations were leaked to the news media at the most politically opportune moment. And as Ford’s story fell apart following her testimony, women saw the obvious harm the Democrats’ tactic will inflict on real victims of sexual assault.

Moderate women voters also find Democratic senators’ utter disregard for the men affected by false claims of sexual assault terrifying. Women watched as Kavanaugh spoke forcefully to defend his name and honor, and in Kavanaugh, women saw their innocent fathers, husbands, brothers, or sons, falsely accused, condemned and left with a reputation irreparably damaged. And in Kavanaugh’s loving wife, young daughters and distraught mother, women saw themselves and their families.

Women also saw the future of a society that puts politics over the principles of fairness and the presumption of innocence. And they saw Democrats leading that charge.

Democratic politicians, professional protesters and reproductive-rights activists are so blinded by their rage at how Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon succeeded in appointing a second originalist justice to the Supreme Court, they cannot see the anger they unleashed in the apolitical populace across America. They will see it, though, come November.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/08/christine-blasey-ford-women-democrats-partisan-brett-kavanaugh-voters-column/1559347002/

by Original Quill Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:40 pm

gelico wrote:In Ford, women saw a distraught and damaged woman paraded before the Senate, her privacy in tatters, because her sexual assault allegations were leaked to the news media at the most politically opportune moment. And as Ford’s story fell apart following her testimony, women saw the obvious harm the Democrats’ tactic will inflict on real victims of sexual assault.

Exactly how is Dr. Ford damaged? With a PhD is psychology, and an appointment at one of the three best universities in the nation, Dr. Ford is much more capable of making a psychological diagnosis than anyone except another PhD in psychology at a major institution. Certainly a faux opinion by a 500-pound keyboard jockey sitting on the side of a bed, working on a laptop, is no competition to her.

It is true that she wanted to remain anonymous, but apparently one of her 'beach' friends, with whom she met and discussed the matter, let the secret out. There are no privacy guarantees in important political matters.

Consequently, the secret was out and there is no denying the facts. Dr. Ford was assaulted in an attempted rape, and she is "100% certain" that it was Kavanaugh that did it. As for Republicans who claim she was "mistaken", as a PhD in psychology Dr. Ford is also much more capable than anyone of assessing her degree of certainty. She is the professional.

(Thinking back on my own High School days, there's no mistaking who was who, and what they did...and I'm older than Dr. Ford.)

So, these are the facts: Brett Kavanaugh, now a Supreme Court Justice, attempted to rape a young woman in High School...maybe others. Clarence Thomas, now a Supreme Court Justice, was a sexual harasser while serving as a federal employee at the Civil Rights Division. The US Supreme Court is now in the hands of sexual deviants.

Donald Trump, whose father was a member of the Gambino New York crime family, and he, a friend of John Gotti, has instated his own organized crime family in the White House. The Executive Branch of the US Government is now in organized crime hands.

The Republicans in Congress have developed into a crime gang themselves, doing the bidding of the Trump crime family.

And you think this is perfectly fine with the American public? I'll make no predictions myself, but if it is, and the Trump New York crime family hooks up with the Putin Moscow crime syndicate, the two will have cornered nearly all of the nuclear weapons in the world... Machine Gun Kelly would be proud.

by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:25 pm

Original Quill wrote:
gelico wrote:In Ford, women saw a distraught and damaged woman paraded before the Senate, her privacy in tatters, because her sexual assault allegations were leaked to the news media at the most politically opportune moment. And as Ford’s story fell apart following her testimony, women saw the obvious harm the Democrats’ tactic will inflict on real victims of sexual assault.

there is no denying the facts. Dr. Ford was assaulted in an attempted rape, and she is "100% certain" that it was Kavanaugh that did it. As for Republicans who claim she was "mistaken", as a PhD in psychology Dr. Ford is also much more capable than anyone of assessing her degree of certainty. She is the professional.

I think you'll find that it's actually her so called witnesses who have implied this one. Not one single person has corrorborated being at or knowing about any such party

So, these are the facts: Brett Kavanaugh, now a Supreme Court Justice, attempted to rape a young woman in High School...maybe others.

No quill, these are the facts:

Ford made an allegation

said allegation was known about by feinstein more than a month before they broke the news (publicly at the 11th hour)

Ford did not want to attend hearing citing fear of flying

when asked about this she admitted that she flies all over the place for work and holidays

Ford had croaky, tearful sounding voice and yet there was not so much as a glisten in her eyes, much less any sign of real tears, nor any mucus build up (my son and I sat there afterwards talking to each other in low croaky, tearful voices,,,,it's not difficult)

claimed she had another front door as a response to the memories she had during therapy etc

report from building works application office stated that the extra front door was applied for back in 2008 due to the fact that they were thinking of renting on of the rooms and wanted the client to have their own exit and entrance.

For cannot remember where or when this assault happened

the people that she clearly remembered being there have no recollection of this and dont know what she's talking about

ex boyfriend who dated her for six years states, we used to fly all over the place and she never had any fear. she also didn't have a fear of closed spaces as she claimed, never mentioned any form of assault at any time. furthermore he claims that when he visited her (in her tiny enclosed little apartment that she was living in) she was coaching and prepping a friend on lie detectors. she claimed she had never done any such thing.

same with the debra remirez and julie swetnick claims have been refuted by anyone mentioned in them

And you think this is perfectly fine with the American public?

No quill, I do not.

which is why i think the democrats have all but destroyed themselves with this poisonous circus

i predict a huge red wave coming

think about this

she claimed she ran out of the house alone. any 15 year old who was genuinely in that situation would have made damn sure that the first thing she did would be to grab her mate and say we're getting out of here. no one would be that traumatised that they would 'forget' to get their mate, the only other girl there. so what, she just left her there with these would be rapists did she? that would make her a selfish, uncaring monster

by Original Quill Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:51 pm

gelico wrote:I think you'll find that it's actually her so called witnesses who have implied this one. Not one single person has corrorborated being at or knowing about any such party

That's not exactly true. By count, over 40 witnesses went unquestioned. As for the gathering where Dr. Ford was assaulted, the truth is no one remembers the party. That's understandable, as the occasion was unremarkable except as to those who were in the bedroom at the time of the attempted rape: Kavanaugh, Judge and Dr. Ford.

Of the two perps, the one who did it denies it, and the other says he doesn't remember. However, neither were subjected to perjury questioning. You saw an 'affected' Kavanaugh have a shit-fit in the Senate chambers--methinks he doth protest too much--and Mark Judge was subjected to a 'fig-leaf' inquiry.

Of course, all perps lie, so it's evident at the outset that a more intensive interrogation was necessary. But the Senate majority did not want truthful answers. How can people call for 'unity' with outright fraud going on?

by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:58 pm

Original Quill wrote:
gelico wrote:I think you'll find that it's actually her so called witnesses who have implied this one. Not one single person has corrorborated being at or knowing about any such party

That's not exactly true. By count, over 40 witnesses went unquestioned. As for the gathering where Dr. Ford was assaulted, the truth is no one remembers the party.

knew about/remembered,,,,whatever, same difference. the fact is not one person came anywhere near to corroborating this claim so what proof? there could not have been over 40 ''witnesses' to this allegation if she claims there were no more than six people there at the time

witnesses to what exactly?

it's bollox and you know it's bollox, quill

by nicko Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:09 pm

She lied, end of !

by Original Quill Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:14 pm

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

That's not exactly true. By count, over 40 witnesses went unquestioned. As for the gathering where Dr. Ford was assaulted, the truth is no one remembers the party.

knew about/remembered,,,,whatever, same difference. the fact is not one person came anywhere near to corroborating this claim so what proof? there could not have been over 40 ''witnesses' to this allegation if she claims there were no more than six people there at the time

witnesses to what exactly?

it's bollox and you know it's bollox, quill

No, it's not the same. If you don't ask, you don't receive answers.

The FBI was instructed to do a 'fig-leaf' investigation, and that's what they did. Over 40 witnesses said they called the FBI office and proffered information, and the FBI never got back to them. Small wonder...the senators who wanted to cover things up were the ones giving directions to the FBI. (Truthfully, I'm surprised the FBI didn't refuse the assignment.)

I believe that the Republicans are so elitist that they think people are inherently stupid. They've played a huge 'bait-and-switch' with their confirmation inquiry, and they think people don't see it. They are going to find out that the people are a bit smarter than they realize.

by Original Quill Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:15 pm

nicko wrote:She lied, end of !

Like all women who claim rape?

by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:
gelico wrote:

knew about/remembered,,,,whatever, same difference. the fact is not one person came anywhere near to corroborating this claim so what proof? there could not have been over 40 ''witnesses' to this allegation if she claims there were no more than six people there at the time

witnesses to what exactly?

it's bollox and you know it's bollox, quill

No, it's not the same. If you don't ask, you don't receive answers.

The FBI did ask. they asked leyland and mark judge and whoever else she claimed was there that night, they did receive answers. they answered that they couldn't remember anything like that happening at any time.

The FBI was instructed to do a 'fig-leaf' investigation, and that's what they did. Over 40 witnesses said they called the FBI office and proffered information, and the FBI never got back to them.

because it would have been irrelevant. they were questioning witnesses put forward by Ford with regard to her allegation. she said there was no more than six that night. i asume they have now spoken to all six and got nothing

what's the point in talking to anyone who wasn't there?

by Original Quill Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:42 pm

gelico wrote:because it would have been irrelevant. they were questioning witnesses put forward by Ford with regard to her allegation. she said there was no more than six that night. i asume they have now spoken to all six and got nothing

what's the point in talking to anyone who wasn't there?

Actually, that's not true either. The witnesses were from all over Kavanaugh's life...High School, Yale University and since. Apparently the guy has quite a reputation for drinking, and when drunk, notorious behavior. The witnesses have direct testimony, as well as corroborating testimony, and many different stories to tell.

Haha...might make a good movie: Life and Times of Barf O'Kavanaugh. Attempted Rapist to be appointed to Supreme Court? - Page 5 3489511464

Seriously, I think you are doing what Republicans are wont to do: minimize the story (stories) before it's investigated and all the facts are in. The better practice is to have an open mind, and let the facts determine your conclusion.

by Lurker Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:40 pm

His unhinged behavior while testifying should have disqualified the bastard.

by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
gelico wrote:because it would have been irrelevant. they were questioning witnesses put forward by Ford with regard to her allegation. she said there was no more than six that night. i asume they have now spoken to all six and got nothing

what's the point in talking to anyone who wasn't there?

Actually, that's not true either. The witnesses were from all over Kavanaugh's life...High School, Yale University and since. Apparently the guy has quite a reputation for drinking, and when drunk, notorious behavior. The witnesses have direct testimony, as well as corroborating testimony, and many different stories to tell.
.

oh well perhaps as they were investigating Ford's claim in which there were only 6 people involved, her being one of them, they had no need to go listen to pointless gossip

by Original Quill Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:26 pm

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Actually, that's not true either. The witnesses were from all over Kavanaugh's life...High School, Yale University and since. Apparently the guy has quite a reputation for drinking, and when drunk, notorious behavior. The witnesses have direct testimony, as well as corroborating testimony, and many different stories to tell.
.

oh well perhaps as they were investigating Ford's claim in which there were only 6 people involved, her being one of them, they had no need to go listen to pointless gossip

See? You are artificially constraining the investigation, limiting the frame of the inquiry to Dr. Ford's claims. I told you that you were simply following the Republican pattern of hide-and-seek.

Dr. Ford's incident was the catalyst for many other claims, and as each arose, they should have given us greater and greater suspicion and caution. That's how a true, objective investigation goes.

The man has a problem with alcohol, and with sex, and I have a feeling that the problem is going to come home to roost with us soon. Add to that the fact that he comes out of that unique sect of patricians that feel they are entitled and privileged, and the problem is intensified.

by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:05 pm

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Actually, that's not true either. The witnesses were from all over Kavanaugh's life...High School, Yale University and since. Apparently the guy has quite a reputation for drinking, and when drunk, notorious behavior. The witnesses have direct testimony, as well as corroborating testimony, and many different stories to tell.
.

oh well perhaps as they were investigating Ford's claim in which there were only 6 people involved, her being one of them, they had no need to go listen to pointless gossip

As I said nobody would even bring such a case to court

She does not have a single corroborating witness to the alleged event

None of the other claims had any one corroborate the other claims either

by Original Quill Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:05 am

Didge wrote:
gelico wrote:

oh well perhaps as they were investigating Ford's claim in which there were only 6 people involved, her being one of them, they had no need to go listen to pointless gossip

As I said nobody would even bring such a case to court

She does not have a single corroborating witness to the alleged event

None of the other claims had any one corroborate the other claims either

We'll see, after the Democrats take over the House. They will hold the hearings the Republicans and FBI didn't want, and the already identified 40 witnesses will give us the information that Republicans didn't want the world to hear.

This is a well-studied, and well-practiced evasive maneuver of Republicans. It's a form of look over there, don't look over here. Up front, you say that you are going to have a thorough and complete investigation, but then you limit it both as to time and scope. When the criticism comes in, you offer the excuses: no time or not on point, never mind that there was no rush and no need to limit the scope.

After the true, Democratic investigation follows the impeachment of Kavanaugh, simultaneous with criminal prosecution for rape, by Montgomery County. Maryland. Along with the impeachment and prosecution of the Trump crime family, the next two years should be busy, busy...

by Sponsored content