Author Topic: Kavanaugh's accuser from 38 years ago goes public (Read 92410 times)

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #675 on:** October 11, 2018, 04:46:40 PM »

Quote from: illuminati on October 11, 2018, 04:42:58 PM

If those accusations were levelled at you
How would you & your wife family deal with it ?
Say it was true & accept it just because the accuser says so?

If it happened as she said it did I would apologize to her, letting her know that my behavior was unacceptable and I regret causing her obvious mental anguish and that I am not that person and haven't been for 3 decades.

If I didn't do it I would certainly have been vocal about getting the FBI involved to attempt to make sense of it.

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #676 on:** October 11, 2018, 04:49:08 PM »

Quote from: illuminati on October 11, 2018, 04:42:58 PM

If those accusations were levelled at you
How would you & your wife family deal with it ?
Say it was true & accept it just because the accuser says so?

My turn to ask a question. Did you believe his explanations for

Beach Week Ralph Club?
Renate Alumnus?
Bart O'Kavenaugh?

If you did then you may just be the most gullible person on the planet. If you didn't do you think someone who lied under oath should be disqualified from the Supreme Court?

Kwon3 · « **Reply #677 on:** October 11, 2018, 04:49:59 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on October 11, 2018, 04:46:40 PM

If it happened as she said it did I would apologize to her, letting her know that my behavior was unacceptable and I regret causing her obvious mental anguish and that I am not that person and haven't been for 3 decades.

If I didn't do it I would certainly have been vocal about getting the FBI involved to attempt to make sense of it.

yeah apologizing worked well for those 90-odd famous men who got accused, too
real well
how's morgan freeman doing these days? he was an a-lister until 5 months ago

Kwon3 · « **Reply #678 on:** October 11, 2018, 04:50:59 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on October 11, 2018, 04:49:08 PM

My turn to ask a question. Did you believe his explanations for

Beach Week Ralph Club?
Renate Alumnus?
Bart O'Kavenaugh?

If you did then you may just be the most gullible person on the planet. If you didn't do you think someone who lied under oath should be disqualified from the Supreme Court?

None of those things have anything to do with "dr" Ford's claims against him. So whether he told the truth about them or not is immaterial. Just like whether "Dr" ford lied to her husband about her number of sexual partners also doesn't matter because it's not material to the case.

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #679 on:** October 11, 2018, 04:53:13 PM »

Quote from: Kwon3 on October 11, 2018, 04:50:59 PM

None of those things have anything to do with "dr" Ford's claims against him. So whether he told the truth about them or not is immaterial. Just like whether "Dr" ford lied to her husband about her number of sexual partners also doesn't matter because it's not material to the case.

We'll have to disagree. Lying under oath is a biggie and should disqualify him from the position.

illuminati · « **Reply #680 on:** October 11, 2018, 04:54:20 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on October 11, 2018, 04:46:40 PM

If it happened as she said it did I would apologize to her, letting her know that my behavior was unacceptable and I regret causing her obvious mental anguish and that I am not that person and haven't been for 3 decades.

If I didn't do it I would certainly have been vocal about getting the FBI involved to attempt to make sense of it.

If it happened as she said - you’d admit it & all would be good - She’d forgive you
And back your nomination & encourage all others to back you.
Please Get Real - You’d Be Facing a criminal court as you’d of admitted it.
So much for your wife /family / career.

He didn’t do it and
The FBI I believe did get involved.
And he was cleared & elected.

Kwon3 · « **Reply #681 on:** October 11, 2018, 04:56:36 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on October 11, 2018, 04:53:13 PM

We'll have to disagree. Lying under oath is a biggie and should disqualify him from the position.

Well, it didn't, he's confirmed, so grow a fucking pair and get over it.

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #682 on:** October 11, 2018, 04:57:37 PM »

Quote from: illuminati on October 11, 2018, 04:54:20 PM

If it happened as she said - you’d admit it & all would be good - She’d forgive you
And back your nomination & encourage all others to back you.
Please Get Real - You’d Be Facing a criminal court as you’d of admitted it.
So much for your wife /family / career.

He didn’t do it and
The FBI I believe did get involved.
And he was cleared & elected.

Yes, if I did it and she came around 38 years later to accuse me, I would certainly admit it. I am vying for a seat on the Supreme court. I am a federal judge. I certainly believe I could survive telling the truth. Anyone can tell the truth when there is no cost. Integrity and character come into play when it will cost and you still do it.

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #683 on:** October 11, 2018, 04:58:12 PM »

Quote from: Kwon3 on October 11, 2018, 04:56:36 PM

Well, it didn't, he's confirmed, so grow a fucking pair and get over it.

Dude I am over it. We're just talking here...

Kwon3 · « **Reply #684 on:** October 11, 2018, 04:58:54 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on October 11, 2018, 04:57:37 PM

Yes, if I did it and she came around 38 years later to accuse me, I would certainly admit it. I am vying for a seat on the Supreme court. I am a federal judge. I certainly believe I could survive telling the truth. Anyone can tell the truth when there is no cost. Integrity and character come into play when it will cost and you still do it.

Do you know anyone running for the Supreme Court or any other high office that got elected once they admitted to a charge they were accused of, assuming of similar gravity to hers?

I'll wait.

illuminati · « **Reply #685 on:** October 11, 2018, 04:59:04 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on October 11, 2018, 04:49:08 PM

My turn to ask a question. Did you believe his explanations for

Beach Week Ralph Club?
Renate Alumnus?
Bart O'Kavenaugh?

If you did then you may just be the most gullible person on the planet. If you didn't do you think someone who lied under oath should be disqualified from the Supreme Court?

Good questions -
I’d say I’m 50/50 on them
I’d like to have known more about both of them.

The place for this to have been decide is a criminal court
Only she didn’t want to go that route.

So He got elected.

Kwon3 · « **Reply #686 on:** October 11, 2018, 05:00:03 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on October 11, 2018, 04:58:12 PM

Dude I am over it. We're just talking here...

Nah, you're still really frustrated by it. I can tell this doesn't sit well with you at all, or you'd have let this (admittedly excellent) thread die a natural death. Ford moved on and got her bags of money and her fame. Kavanaugh for appointed. Trump's moved onto other things. It's over man. Let it go.

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #687 on:** October 11, 2018, 05:00:58 PM »

Quote from: illuminati on October 11, 2018, 04:59:04 PM

Good questions -
I’d say I’m 50/50 on them
I’d like to have known more about both of them.

The place for this to have been decide is a criminal court
Only she didn’t want to go that route.

So He got elected.

I think the place to decide if he was lying under oath would have been a thorough background check by the FBI. It would have been pretty easy to gather enough information to show he was obviouly lying about those 3 things.. and for me.. and should be for most of America, if a nominee for the Supreme Court is shown to be lying under oath about small things like that.. what else might he lie about?

illuminati · « **Reply #688 on:** October 11, 2018, 05:01:15 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on October 11, 2018, 04:57:37 PM

Yes, if I did it and she came around 38 years later to accuse me, I would certainly admit it. I am vying for a seat on the Supreme court. I am a federal judge. I certainly believe I could survive telling the truth. Anyone can tell the truth when there is no cost. Integrity and character come into play when it will cost and you still do it.

Okay - I’ll take your word for that.

Kwon3 · « **Reply #689 on:** October 11, 2018, 05:02:05 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on October 11, 2018, 05:00:58 PM

I think the place to decide if he was lying under oath would have been a thorough background check by the FBI. It would have been pretty easy to gather enough information to show he was obviouly lying about those 3 things.. and for me.. and should be for most of America, if a nominee for the Supreme Court is shown to be lying under oath about small things like that.. what else might he lie about?

It was thorough. The only people who don't believe it were the people who voted against him. The six he had before were thorough too. He got 1200+ questions asked of him by the Senate. There's more than all SCOTUS nominees COMBINED in U.S. history. Even Gorsuch only got like 200.

Kwon3 · « **Reply #690 on:** October 11, 2018, 05:02:54 PM »

Quote from: illuminati on October 11, 2018, 05:01:15 PM

Okay - I’ll take your word for that.

His word doesn't mean dick around these parts. Straw Man's credibility is bulletproof by comparison.

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #691 on:** October 11, 2018, 05:03:29 PM »

Quote from: illuminati on October 11, 2018, 05:01:15 PM

Okay - I’ll take your word for that.

what would you have done?

Kwon3 · « **Reply #692 on:** October 11, 2018, 05:04:44 PM »

You're a disgusting person if you doubt the FBI is anything but an apolitical, professional body of dedicated men and women who represent the best of law enforcement in the United States. That's like someone saying he doesn't agree with the local cops' verdict on the people who burglarized his house so he wants them to start over again. It doesn't work like that. You don't demand investigations until you get the outcome you WANT.

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #693 on:** October 11, 2018, 05:04:57 PM »

Quote from: Kwon3 on October 11, 2018, 05:02:05 PM

It was thorough. The only people who don't believe it were the people who voted against him. The six he had before were thorough too. He got 1200+ questions asked of him by the Senate. There's more than all SCOTUS nominees COMBINED in U.S. history. Even Gorsuch only got like 200.

No, when he testified about the Renate Alumnus, Bart O'Kavenaugh etc.. the FBI never even looked into it. They focused on the one incident. Apparently lying under oath is no big deal anymore

Kwon3 · « **Reply #694 on:** October 11, 2018, 05:05:42 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on October 11, 2018, 05:04:57 PM

No, when he testified about the Renate Alumnus, Bart O'Kavenaugh etc.. the FBI never even looked into it. They focused on the one incident. Apparently lying under oath is no big deal anymore

The mandate was: Find out whether Christine Ford's accusation about him was true. Whether he lied about drinking games or a skull & bones secret club he belonged to in his yearbook was not relevant. Period. Point blank.

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #695 on:** October 11, 2018, 05:06:10 PM »

Quote from: Kwon3 on October 11, 2018, 05:02:54 PM

His word doesn't mean dick around these parts. Straw Man's credibility is bulletproof by comparison.

Why are we slipping back into insult mode? Doesn't that get old?

illuminati · « **Reply #696 on:** October 11, 2018, 05:06:21 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on October 11, 2018, 05:00:58 PM

I think the place to decide if he was lying under oath would have been a thorough background check by the FBI. It would have been pretty easy to gather enough information to show he was obviouly lying about those 3 things.. and for me.. and should be for most of America, if a nominee for the Supreme Court is shown to be lying under oath about small things like that.. what else might he lie about?

We’re getting in to semantics here and going nowhere
It should of been a criminal trial and all her accusations would of been
Investigated & and his answers also
And The jury would come up with a decision
As this isn’t going to happen it’s all what ifs.
And pointless.

You believe her & I Don’t.

Agnostic007 · « **Reply #697 on:** October 11, 2018, 05:07:20 PM »

Quote from: Kwon3 on October 11, 2018, 05:05:42 PM

The mandate was: Find out whether Christine Ford's accusation about him his true. Whether he lied about drinking games or a skull & bones secret club he belonged to in his yearbook was not relevant. Period. Point blank.

Lying under oath is a thing. It's a big thing. But not recently. I don't want a SCJ that I know lies under oath sitting on the bench. But that's just me

Kwon3 · « **Reply #698 on:** October 11, 2018, 05:07:40 PM »

Quote from: Agnostic007 on October 11, 2018, 05:06:10 PM

Why are we slipping back into insult mode? Doesn't that get old?

You're doing this on purpose to trigger us and you're succeeding because you're insulting our intelligence and the way law enforcement works because you don't like this guy. And then you have the nerve to deny it and act like we're the ones who are out of touch with the situation. It's silly. Let liars be liars, let rape victims be rape victims. Live a wonderful life.

illuminati · « **Reply #699 on:** October 11, 2018, 05:07:48 PM »

Quote from: Kwon3 on October 11, 2018, 05:02:05 PM

It was thorough. The only people who don't believe it were the people who voted against him. The six he had before were thorough too. He got 1200+ questions asked of him by the Senate. There's more than all SCOTUS nominees COMBINED in U.S. history. Even Gorsuch only got like 200.

Ahh but that’s stil not enough for him.