Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 120

Thread: Brett Kavanaugh Circus

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Upstairs
    Posts
    3,947

    Brett Kavanaugh Circus

    The whole mess of the SC nomination of Brett Kavanaugh seems to me to fall squarely on the shoulders of Dianne Feinstein. She's the one who sat on the allegation for two months when an investigation could have been done.

    If the Democrats were really interested in fact-finding, as they repeatedly state, they would have brought the accusation forward a long time ago, instead of trying to score a "gotcha" last minute surprise. The accusation cannot be proved one way or the other, so the damage has been done because some will believe the accuser no matter what happens.
    Screaming Geriatric Dominoes Enter My Brain

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Westwood
    Posts
    6,018
    The allegation was not brought up earlier because there was so much other dirt on K.

    His finances are suspicious. Someone paid a $100,000 fee to join an exclusive golf club, for example. A judge should not be accepting favours like that.
    Most federal employees cannot accept gifts anywhere near that. But the Republicans won't even discuss it.
    He had a large part in secret national security courts, where suspects were held and tried in secret.
    Kavanaugh was evasive and clearly lying in his own interviews. He is anti abortion but refuses to admit it and made some stupid remarks when asked about it. There were a few times he pretended not to understand a question so he could avoid answering.

    The Republicans are lying hypocrites over this appointment. They want to ram it through without debate. When the Dems attempted to debate the Republicans accused them of lacking decorum. The Republicans had no problem filibustering Obama's hearings for Garland.
    The Republicans refused to discuss the 100,000 gift, they won't discuss how Kavanaugh bought a lavish house on his judge's salary. But they demanded to know how the woman who said he assaulted her could afford a $300 lie detector test.

    Kavanaugh's own performance should have sunk him.
    Trying to rush through his appointment is bad.
    Kavanaugh himself is almost irrelevant, it is the behaviour of the Republicans that is the issue.
    Two hands helping do more good than a thousand hands clasped in prayer

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Upstairs
    Posts
    3,947
    Quote Originally Posted by westwoody View Post
    The allegation was not brought up earlier because there was so much other dirt on K.

    His finances are suspicious. Someone paid a $100,000 fee to join an exclusive golf club, for example. A judge should not be accepting favours like that.
    Most federal employees cannot accept gifts anywhere near that. But the Republicans won't even discuss it.


    The Republicans are lying hypocrites over this appointment. They want to ram it through without debate. When the Dems attempted to debate the Republicans accused them of lacking decorum. The Republicans had no problem filibustering Obama's hearings for Garland.
    The Republicans refused to discuss the 100,000 gift, they won't discuss how Kavanaugh bought a lavish house on his judge's salary. But they demanded to know how the woman who said he assaulted her could afford a $300 lie detector test.

    Kavanaugh's own performance should have sunk him.
    Trying to rush through his appointment is bad.
    Kavanaugh himself is almost irrelevant, it is the behaviour of the Republicans that is the issue.
    Not brought forward because there was other dirt? Is that the way it works? Tthe Democrats think they can withhold relevant information unless they need it? In a regular court withholding information would bring a charge of obstruction. He was investigated many times.

    Source for your claim of $100,000 anonymous gift? According to sources I searched, he put it on his credit cards.

    Ram through without debate? What do you think the hearings are?

    He earns 1/4 million a year. He's not a pauper. What do you consider a lavish house? His family is also wealthy.

    An unproveable accusation is a return to McCarthyism.
    Screaming Geriatric Dominoes Enter My Brain

  4. #4
    Riddle me this. If someone is lying (Dr.Ford)and they know that lying to the FBI is a crime, why would they be asking for an FBI investigation? If a sitting Federal Judge is accused of something he denies with his reputation at stake why wouldn’t he demand one?
    Steve Schmidt tweet

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In Lust Mostly
    Posts
    9,474
    Blog Entries
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Cock Throppled View Post
    The whole mess of the SC nomination of Brett Kavanaugh seems to me to fall squarely on the shoulders of Dianne Feinstein. She's the one who sat on the allegation for two months when an investigation could have been done.

    If the Democrats were really interested in fact-finding, as they repeatedly state, they would have brought the accusation forward a long time ago, instead of trying to score a "gotcha" last minute surprise. The accusation cannot be proved one way or the other, so the damage has been done because some will believe the accuser no matter what happens.
    Actually this play by Feinstein is perfect timing. An FBI investigation, hearings etc will most likely delay the vote until after the midterms. Maybe it might work and the house and senate might be swung to the Democrats?

    No surprise about the Republicans, they think they are above the law and can ram things through without full disclosure or hearings. They pulled the same thing with Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill.


    I am so homophobic, I eat bananas sidewise.

    Bill Maher talking about Mike Pence.

    https://youtu.be/Jx4ioveM7Jc





  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Upstairs
    Posts
    3,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    Riddle me this. If someone is lying (Dr.Ford)and they know that lying to the FBI is a crime, why would they be asking for an FBI investigation? If a sitting Federal Judge is accused of something he denies with his reputation at stake why wouldn’t he demand one?
    Steve Schmidt tweet
    A - the accusation is virtually impossible to prove or disprove. It's a "he said/she said", and after this length of time how could it be determined one way or the other defiitively? So far, her memory has gaps, and everyone else who was supposed to be there is denying it happened.

    B - She may not think she's lying. There are multiple instances of people taking minor incidents, and over time building them into monumental issues in their minds. A lot of violent acts are blamed on people who spent months or years dwelling on some slight, who tuly believed they were somehow aggrieved, but were mistaken.

    C - She might be wrong about who was involved if what she described did take place.

    D - Is Kavanaugh against an investigation? I don't think I've heard he is.
    Screaming Geriatric Dominoes Enter My Brain

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In Lust Mostly
    Posts
    9,474
    Blog Entries
    18
    Also, let's not forget the Republicans withheld an enormous amount of requested data and then dumped 40,000 pages the night before the hearings. And Feinstein is the problem?


    I am so homophobic, I eat bananas sidewise.

    Bill Maher talking about Mike Pence.

    https://youtu.be/Jx4ioveM7Jc





  8. #8
    I'm back, for awhile...
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Patch
    Posts
    5,086
    Quote Originally Posted by WetWillieWinkie View Post
    I thought that Feinstein did not do anything with the information under instructions from her client.

    Makes me wonder why an established Professor at Stanford would put herself though the ordeal that is surely to follow.
    The Prof is not a Feinstein client...Feinstein is not even a lawyer, she's a professional politician. The Prof didn't want to go public with this, but she felt somebody should know. Once shit started to leak to the media she decided to go all in...but still doesn't want to testify until the FBI does an investigation.
    I think my guardian angel drinks...
    I'll tell you what's wrong with society....nobody drinks from the skulls of their enemies anymore.
    Sometimes life will fuck you and you'll just have to change position and enjoy it somehow.

  9. #9
    Has anyone seen his response to Kamilla Harris question about his potential discussion about the Trump investigation with a certain Law firm ? Talk about cringe worthy !!! It was seriously the most blatant disrespect to a question. Kind of like a teen after being asked an incriminating question from his parents.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In Lust Mostly
    Posts
    9,474
    Blog Entries
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Westcoast1 View Post
    Has anyone seen his response to Kamilla Harris question about his potential discussion about the Trump investigation with a certain Law firm ? Talk about cringe worthy !!! It was seriously the most blatant disrespect to a question. Kind of like a teen after being asked an incriminating question from his parents.
    Really was a liar liar pants on fire moment.

    Turns out a good friend of his works for that firm and they worked together in the Bush Whitehouse.

    Kavanaugh turned a bit red and didn't want to tell the truth.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...estions-809140


    I am so homophobic, I eat bananas sidewise.

    Bill Maher talking about Mike Pence.

    https://youtu.be/Jx4ioveM7Jc





  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    Riddle me this. If someone is lying (Dr.Ford)and they know that lying to the FBI is a crime, why would they be asking for an FBI investigation? If a sitting Federal Judge is accused of something he denies with his reputation at stake why wouldn’t he demand one?
    Steve Schmidt tweet
    Here's your riddle. She is not talking to the FBI and won't talk to the Senators either. She wants the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh based on her 36 year old memory of not knowing where or when her fantasy took place. The FBI has already said they wouldn't. And since when does anyone have to prove they didn't do something? The onus is on her to prove he did.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,281
    Quote Originally Posted by BIGOZZIE View Post
    Here's your riddle. She is not talking to the FBI and won't talk to the Senators either. She wants the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh based on her 36 year old memory of not knowing where or when her fantasy took place. The FBI has already said they wouldn't. And since when does anyone have to prove they didn't do something? The onus is on her to prove he did.
    I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that perhaps you've already made up your mind on the legitimacy of her accusations?

    Just to answer the implied question, the FBI have a few things they can investigate... questioning his former classmates to see if anyone can corroborate his presence at a party he says he didn't attend (goes to credibility) and also about his behaviours to see if there's anything consistent with the accusations, and likewise question her classmates, solicit witnesses or entice other victims (if there are any) to come forward. If he did this, then it would be unlikely to be his only transgression. Building a picture of an MO, if it exists, would corroborate her story. Questioning his colleagues about his behaviour to see if there any red flags (like the suggestion that he hired interns for their looks... did it stop there or did he impose on them?).

    And while you are right to be cautious about guilty until proven innocent, this isn't some random Joe. The guy has voluntarily submitted himself to any and all scrutiny by virtue of pursuing one of the most powerful positions in their country. They would be remiss if they didn't "leave no stone unturned."

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,281
    Ronald Reagan's daughter has come to Ford's defence, explains how the spotted memory and silence rings true as she, 40 years later, reveals her own rape:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.edb3bd83de79

  14. #14
    it is 36 years in the past,

    so why bring it up now, to ruin is career
    she could have done that a long time ago with such accusations.
    he can't be held criminally responsible for anything.

    I kind of think she was put up to it or its a witch hunt.
    like some one said,

    it is he said this she said this,
    there was a co worker accused of some shit,
    and that is what the judge said,
    who do I believe,
    and the case was acquitted I believe, meaning,
    not enough to convict not enough to prove innocence either.

    in the end all this is, is a smear campaign

    the lady in my opinion is well I dunno not shinning so bright either,
    simply because she waited 36 years and to this moment, when most likely nothing can be proven either way,

    some one said these me too ladies who have to jump on the band wagon, look week,
    I want to say britinay spears but not her,

    I agree some of them do, to bring up something that happened thirty years ago,
    and maybe some guy patted your ass, or said nice tits, and then say thirty years latter it ruined your life, or you have ptsd

    and I don't want to make light of ladies who have gone through real traumatic experiences,
    but they must be rolling their eyes too, they were viciously raped,
    and they have to put up with these women saying well you know some guy patted my ass once and I was soo soo traumatized

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Upstairs
    Posts
    3,947
    Bill Clinton has been publicly accused of sexual misconduct by four women: Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of raping her in 1978; Kathleen Willey accused Clinton of groping her without consent in 1993; Leslie Millwee[1] accused Clinton of sexually assaulting her in 1980; and Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991 as well as sexually harassing her. The Jones allegations became public in 1994, during Clinton's first term as president, while Willey's and Broaddrick's accusations became public in 1999, toward the end of Clinton's second term. Millwee did not make her accusations until 2016.

    Bill Clinton has denied all accusations. Hillary Clinton has publicly stated that all the women are lying.

    Does anybody see the hypocrisy of the Democrats and CNN hosts foaming at the mouth over Kavanaugh?

    Also thought it was funny that Broaddrick has offered to testify before congress if Ford decides not to appear.
    Screaming Geriatric Dominoes Enter My Brain

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •