Kavanaugh's accuser from 38 years ago goes public

[polychronopolous]

This is why no one believes Ford and I'm not flippant when I say this.

1. It came at the time of Kavanaugh's confirmation vote

2. Throughout the entire hearing, leftists were using all kinds of excuses, they organized in chamber protests, one "I am Sparticus" moment, they insinuated he was a racist, they stalled as much as they can and I can't remember how many times they asked for more time, he should withdrawl, needed more background (even though there have been six checks)

3. 65 women came to Kavanaugh's defense

4. The two men she named as witnesses have flat out denied it

5. She's known leftist that's donated to Clinton, a part of the Womens march and vocally was against the wall and Trump.

6. ZERO witnesses whatsoever


No basis for an investigation AT ALL!

No way she shows, Joe.

I just can't see it.

[Agnostic007]

This is why no one believes Ford and I'm not flippant when I say this.

1. It came at the time of Kavanaugh's confirmation vote- She wrote the letter when Kavanaugh was on the short list. It was held back because she had second thoughts about undergoing the fallout which was sure to come from the right. She apparently was correct.

2. Throughout the entire hearing, leftists were using all kinds of excuses, they organized in chamber protests, one "I am Sparticus" moment, they insinuated he was a racist, they stalled as much as they can and I can't remember how many times they asked for more time, he should withdrawl, needed more background (even though there have been six checks)- Irrelevant

3. 65 women came to Kavanaugh's defense- Jeffrey Dalhmer could have found 65 people who would attest to the fact he did not kill and eat them. It only proves he did not eat them, not that he didn't kill and eat others.

4. The two men she named as witnesses have flat out denied it- Well, there you go.. and so you conclude "no one believers her" Yet the mere fact she included one of his own buddies as a witness lends some crediblity just for the very thing that happened. He could simply say it never happened. But what he said was he didn't recall it. Of course we know now he wrote a book on being a teen age alcoholic and binge drinking to the point of blacking out more than once so...   

5. She's known leftist that's donated to Clinton, a part of the Womens march and vocally was against the wall and Trump. -She is a democrat that donated small amounts of money to the democratic party. She is one of many doctors that signed a letter against forced family separation. That hardly makes her a left wing nut case.


6. ZERO witnesses whatsoever- You mean zero neutral witnesses. That is actually often the case in incidents like this. Doesn't mean she's lying, it just means abusers tend to remove their victims from others before attacking them for this very reason.


No basis for an investigation AT ALL!- I think as part of the background process, which is done to insure the person being asked to fill a job is fit, it would be reasonable to put some effort into this allegation. Had the allegation come up during the course of their background check do you think the FBI would have ignored it? of course not, they would have looked into it. Not for criminal reasons but in order to obtain information to pass on to the committee. 

I'm sure you are outstanding as a coach and trainer

[Kwon3]

The FBI investigated Anita Hills claim and the FBI obviously does background and security checks

Just more hypocrisy from the GOP and Trumptard

Hill’s claims were recent, and were deemed unfounded. Great reference, you fucking moron.

[chaos]

I'm sure you are outstanding as a coach and trainer

Legit question....someone makes a claim, no evidence, no witnesses, no proof, decades after the fact...hiw do you even start to investigate?

[Kwon3]

Legit question....someone makes a claim, no evidence, no witnesses, no proof, decades after the fact...hiw do you even start to investigate?

The same way they 'investigate' domestic violence calls: They ask neighbors, relatives of the 'victim', look for signs of physical trauma (even if self-inflicted), screen the accused for previous calls or reports about the same type of accusation, and then submits the case to the local district attorney for prosecution.

Notice how in that entire chain of events, there's no requirement for clear and incontrovertible evidence that anything actually happened, nor that the accused was the one who did it. They basically leave it up to a jury to decide.

[Dos Equis]

This is why no one believes Ford and I'm not flippant when I say this.

1. It came at the time of Kavanaugh's confirmation vote

2. Throughout the entire hearing, leftists were using all kinds of excuses, they organized in chamber protests, one "I am Sparticus" moment, they insinuated he was a racist, they stalled as much as they can and I can't remember how many times they asked for more time, he should withdrawl, needed more background (even though there have been six checks)

3. 65 women came to Kavanaugh's defense

4. The two men she named as witnesses have flat out denied it

5. She's known leftist that's donated to Clinton, a part of the Womens march and vocally was against the wall and Trump.

6. ZERO witnesses whatsoever


No basis for an investigation AT ALL!

I agree.

[Dos Equis]

You think this battle was tough? Wait a few months when we trade the old decrepit jalopy in for a newer more reliable model capable of running for the next 40 years.

I'm actually thinking Sotomayor might go before the Notorious RBG.

[Coach is Back!]

Well well well, what a surprise!

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/18/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-and-links-ge/



Look at what’s going on with Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation proceedings for the Supreme Court, and the fingerprints of George Soros are all over it.

First there was a report from June in the Daily Caller that found “a new political advocacy group that vowed to put $5 million behind an effort to stop … Kavanaugh’s confirmation has significant ties to the liberal financier” Soros.

What are those ties?

The group, Demand Justice, established in 2018, gets its money from the Sixteen Thirty Fund — and the Sixteen Thirty Fund received roughly $2.2 million from the Open Society Policy Center, one of Soros’ outlets, between the years of 2012 and 2016.

[Pray_4_War]

Sounds legit, lol.

[Desolate]

Hill’s claims were recent, and were deemed unfounded. Great reference, you fucking moron.

ROTFLMAO!

[Agnostic007]

Legit question....someone makes a claim, no evidence, no witnesses, no proof, decades after the fact...hiw do you even start to investigate?

Typically you would interview the accused and accuser to lock down the story. Since he is saying it never happened you won't get much from him. From her, you may or may not get the home it happened in. If the floorplan fits what she described that adds credibility. If the owners can confirm that room had a stereo that could be turned up, another straw. Not saying after these many years that will happen but it could. They'll work on finding out if they can determine other people at the party. Who did she hang out with at the time, did she go there alone, that kind of stuff.

Mark Judge, his not recalling it could be that it didn't happen, could be he binge drank as he says he was prone to do and blacked out.

At the end of the day, I don't think it's possible to prove it happened or disprove it happened. There are things they could find that would lend credibility to one side of the story or the other and report the findings without drawing a conclusion.

Again, I can get past the "I was 17 and drunk" argument. I've never done that but lets say he did. It was a bad thing. It obviously caused her a lot of emotional strife. But if there is nothing in his record or history to indicate a pattern or even a repeat of this, then for me, I would not disqualify him for it. However if it turns out to be likely true, and he chose to deny it rather than own it, that would speak to current integrity and is a different story. My best guess is due to the time that has passed, people who may have known anything about it either dying, moving away and not having contact, it will turn out to be inconclusive. But I do think it ought to be looked into. 

[Kwon3]

Typically you would interview the accused and accuser to lock down the story. Since he is saying it never happened you won't get much from him. From her, you may or may not get the home it happened in. If the floorplan fits what she described that adds credibility. If the owners can confirm that room had a stereo that could be turned up, another straw. Not saying after these many years that will happen but it could. They'll work on finding out if they can determine other people at the party. Who did she hang out with at the time, did she go there alone, that kind of stuff.

Mark Judge, his not recalling it could be that it didn't happen, could be he binge drank as he says he was prone to do and blacked out.

At the end of the day, I don't think it's possible to prove it happened or disprove it happened. There are things they could find that would lend credibility to one side of the story or the other and report the findings without drawing a conclusion.

Again, I can get past the "I was 17 and drunk" argument. I've never done that but lets say he did. It was a bad thing. It obviously caused her a lot of emotional strife. But if there is nothing in his record or history to indicate a pattern or even a repeat of this, then for me, I would not disqualify him for it. However if it turns out to be likely true, and he chose to deny it rather than own it, that would speak to current integrity and is a different story. My best guess is due to the time that has passed, people who may have known anything about it either dying, moving away and not having contact, it will turn out to be inconclusive. But I do think it ought to be looked into. 

[Agnostic007]

Maybe you're having an off day. Whatever is going on, I hope tomorrow things are better for you

[Coach is Back!]

Typically you would interview the accused and accuser to lock down the story. Since he is saying it never happened you won't get much from him. From her, you may or may not get the home it happened in. If the floorplan fits what she described that adds credibility. If the owners can confirm that room had a stereo that could be turned up, another straw. Not saying after these many years that will happen but it could. They'll work on finding out if they can determine other people at the party. Who did she hang out with at the time, did she go there alone, that kind of stuff.

Mark Judge, his not recalling it could be that it didn't happen, could be he binge drank as he says he was prone to do and blacked out.

At the end of the day, I don't think it's possible to prove it happened or disprove it happened. There are things they could find that would lend credibility to one side of the story or the other and report the findings without drawing a conclusion.

Again, I can get past the "I was 17 and drunk" argument. I've never done that but lets say he did. It was a bad thing. It obviously caused her a lot of emotional strife. But if there is nothing in his record or history to indicate a pattern or even a repeat of this, then for me, I would not disqualify him for it. However if it turns out to be likely true, and he chose to deny it rather than own it, that would speak to current integrity and is a different story. My best guess is due to the time that has passed, people who may have known anything about it either dying, moving away and not having contact, it will turn out to be inconclusive. But I do think it ought to be looked into. 

You're not going to get anything from her either since she already said she's not testifying. She's not testifying because it's bullshit.

[Kwon3]

Maybe you're having an off day. Whatever is going on, I hope tomorrow things are better for you

Why would you write this?

[Kwon3]

You're not going to get anything from her either since she already said she's not testifying. She's not testifying because it's bullshit.

He pretends to be a cop on the Internet while promoting a far-left agenda in all his posts and claiming to understand what rape victims go through.

[Agnostic007]

You're not going to get anything from her either since she already said she's not testifying. She's not testifying because it's bullshit.

'
'

Coach, you are wrong.. You likely have no experience with victims of sexual assault. It's not the same as testifying that you signed a contract with X for 12 months to train them and X at 4 months refuses to pay. It's traumatic. Who in their right mind would go before a hostile group of people on national tv (or in private) knowing going in they don't have the means or the experience to determine anything. Her request that the FBI look into it is reasonable considering she knows already that the majority of Republicans won't listen to a word she says.

[Agnostic007]

He pretends to be a cop on the Internet while promoting a far-left agenda in all his posts and claiming to understand what rape victims go through.

Chaos is a moderator. He can confirm I am a retired cop. Not that it matters in the big picture. I speak as a private citizen, though I do have experience and insight in some things others might not. Doesn't mean I am always right. It's my opinion. And for the record. This is the only account I have had since joining when you were in diapers. I'm sorry you are having a tough time of it, but trust me, projecting your anger on me isn't going to help and it will only make you look stupid(er)

[Kwon3]

'
'

Coach, you are wrong.. You likely have no experience with victims of sexual assault. It's not the same as testifying that you signed a contract with X for 12 months to train them and X at 4 months refuses to pay. It's traumatic. Who in their right mind would go before a hostile group of people on national tv (or in private) knowing going in they don't have the means or the experience to determine anything. Her request that the FBI look into it is reasonable considering she knows already that the majority of Republicans won't listen to a word she says.

1) She doesn't need the Republicans to listen to her. She's being offered the chance to speak with a bipartian group led by Chuck Grassley, no friend of Kavanaugh's, in her home state, to avoid inconveniencing her by flying to DC to allow the accused to face his accuser. Her lawyer had agreed to this on Monday, and today reneged on her commitment and stopped returning the media's phonecalls and voicemails.

If someone robs your house, do you wait 36 years to report it? She obviously wanted attention, which is why she brought this to the attention of the senate to begin with. Who does that? She had the local police if she wanted to pursue it in law. The FBI doesn't deal with state crimes or allegations of them. Again, you want to hold the entire SCOTUS process hostage because it suits your leftist agenda and you don't care about the rights of the accused.

[Kwon3]

Chaos is a moderator. He can confirm I am a retired cop. Not that it matters in the big picture. I speak as a private citizen, though I do have experience and insight in some things others might not. Doesn't mean I am always right. It's my opinion. And for the record. This is the only account I have had since joining when you were in diapers. I'm sorry you are having a tough time of it, but trust me, projecting your anger on me isn't going to help and it will only make you look stupid(er)

Why do I need chaos to confirm it? I asked you to post proof of it here and you failed to do so. What've you got to hide? No ex cops I know are afraid to admit to it, in fact, most are proud of their service.

[Kwon3]

Why can't you post proof publicly? Redact your name if you need to. Only cowards do things through private channels, or people who have something to hide. Hey, wait a minute, you're a Democrat, right?  

[Agnostic007]

Why do I need chaos to confirm it? I asked you to post proof of it here and you failed to do so. What've you got to hide? No ex cops I know are afraid to admit to it, in fact, most are proud of their service.

You need Chaos to confirm it because that's how it works on this board. You may not believe it but there are people on this board who would wish you were gunned down by the sniper in Las Vegas and describe you bleeding out in almost pornographic terms, I mean sick people... So the standard procedure is to prove it through Ron or a moderator. You should understand my concern, there are sicko's on this site. And Chaos has credibility, he is a moderator, AND he and I have argued at every turn. He has no reason to lie for me. If that ain't enough, then continue on in your delusion.What do you do for a living by the way? 

[Kwon3]

You need Chaos to confirm it because that's how it works on this board. You may not believe it but there are people on this board who would wish you were gunned down by the sniper in Las Vegas and describe you bleeding out in almost pornographic terms, I mean sick people... So the standard procedure is to prove it through Ron or a moderator. You should understand my concern, there are sicko's on this site. And Chaos has credibility, he is a moderator, AND he and I have argued at every turn. He has no reason to lie for me. If that ain't enough, then continue on in your delusion.What do you do for a living by the way? 

No, it doesn't work like that. If you have proof, post it. If you don't. then shut the fuck up. See how that works? Now you know why this thread was started, because that lying cumbag in California is doing the same thing.

[Kwon3]

chaos can tonguejack my hairy ass. I don't care what he has to say, which is why I rejected his PM asking me who I was two months ago. His views on politics aside, we have nothing in common. But he's more of a man than you, since I'm pretty sure he'd tell me what he does for a living if I asked him.

Stop being a pussy and hiding behind other men for protection, ya nutless windbag.

[Agnostic007]

chaos can tonguejack my hairy ass. I don't care what he has to say, which is why I rejected his PM asking me who I was two months ago. His views on politics aside, we have nothing in common. But he's more of a man than you, since I'm pretty sure he'd tell me what he does for a living if I asked him.

Stop being a pussy and hiding behind other men for protection, ya nutless windbag.

What do you do for a living? I'm a retired police Commander