Brett Kavanaugh Circus
- Thread starter Cock Throppled
- Start date
Joe, try this scenario - you've just been accused of a sexual assault dating back 10 years.
You must admit you're guilty without having to go through all that proof nonsense.
You now turn yourself in at the nearest police detachment and make a full confession.
This, unbelieveably, is what you and many others think is just fine as long as it's not you.
Last edited:
there added some basic common sense to it for yah
or did you forget people lie, all the time
it's called evidence, not hearsay
Academy Award-winning actress Tatum O’Neal posted an emotional message on Instagram acknowledging that she’s been the victim of sexual assault “more than once.”
“I am a woman and I have been sexually assaulted more than once,” O’Neal, 54, wrote in the posting. “It was not my fault when I was 5, 6, 12, 13, 15 – all by older men who I thought were safe.”
“Whether it was 35 years ago to a 75-year-old man at 15, I remember everything,” she wrote on Instagram.
“I am a woman and I have been sexually assaulted more than once,” O’Neal, 54, wrote in the posting. “It was not my fault when I was 5, 6, 12, 13, 15 – all by older men who I thought were safe.”
“Whether it was 35 years ago to a 75-year-old man at 15, I remember everything,” she wrote on Instagram.
Too much anecdotal crap. I don't 100 percent believe her statements about Kav but am even less inclined to entertain this farce of an analysis.
I don't agree that a victim of rape should always be believed,
every case should have its own merits and be judged individually,
police stats indicate, that 40 to 50 percent of rape claims are false.
I sat through a molestation trial, and the judge just laughed and said this is ridiculous and threw it out,
the famous judge in Calgary that said she should have kept her knees together,
there was a second trial, and again there was an acquittal
it is not that simple.
not even close to being that simple.
this case has taken on a life of its own,
I think most are thinking with their emotions instead of there intellect,
imagine you are accused of something 36 years ago, everyone was drunk,
different accounts of what happened, the basic facts as to when this happened can't even be established,
I want to be believe ford,
but I think there is a burden of proof,
you cannot just believe everything you hear, from either side,
what happens if you give every women cart blanch, in regards to rape with out question,
that im sorry is just a stupid comment,
people lie all the time,
I sat in court and watched people lie, not just one person, but person after person.
people fucking lie a lot,
every case should have its own merits and be judged individually,
police stats indicate, that 40 to 50 percent of rape claims are false.
I sat through a molestation trial, and the judge just laughed and said this is ridiculous and threw it out,
the famous judge in Calgary that said she should have kept her knees together,
there was a second trial, and again there was an acquittal
it is not that simple.
not even close to being that simple.
this case has taken on a life of its own,
I think most are thinking with their emotions instead of there intellect,
imagine you are accused of something 36 years ago, everyone was drunk,
different accounts of what happened, the basic facts as to when this happened can't even be established,
I want to be believe ford,
but I think there is a burden of proof,
you cannot just believe everything you hear, from either side,
what happens if you give every women cart blanch, in regards to rape with out question,
that im sorry is just a stupid comment,
people lie all the time,
I sat in court and watched people lie, not just one person, but person after person.
people fucking lie a lot,
Ford is walking away with over $1 million in Gofundme donations.
If her accusation wasn't purely political, why didn't she bring claims to police or a prosecutor?
Instead, she goes to Diane Feinstein, the most rabid Democrat in the Senate. There is talk of impeaching Kavanaugh, but Ford wants nothing to do with it. She hasn't been investigated at all, yet we're supposed to believe her simply because she's a woman.
That is an illogical standard held up as proper solely because of political hatred.
If her accusation wasn't purely political, why didn't she bring claims to police or a prosecutor?
Instead, she goes to Diane Feinstein, the most rabid Democrat in the Senate. There is talk of impeaching Kavanaugh, but Ford wants nothing to do with it. She hasn't been investigated at all, yet we're supposed to believe her simply because she's a woman.
That is an illogical standard held up as proper solely because of political hatred.
Re: police/prosecutor... Statute of limitations were up. I can actually see a legitimate victim approaching the one person (a vocal leader of the opposition) that they thought could stop their attacker from getting more power over her life. It's not illogical.
Also to each their own, but personally I wouldn't be driven out of my home and into hiding complete with death threats for a million dollars. (A million dollars she had no reason to expect would come her way when she entered the fray, no less.)
Be sceptical and ask questions but be careful not to dismiss plausible explanations.
Re: the "believe the victim" mantra, pragmatically that's just playing the odds. Unprosecuted attacks greatly outnumber false accusations, and evidence is notoriously difficult to assemble. Personally I'm inclined to believe Ford, but Feinstein nonetheless weaponised her accusation for politics' sake. That's on Feinstein not Ford.
Edit to add: IMHO if Feinstein was really interested in doing the right thing she wouldn't have sat on the accusation until the 11th hour. She could've had her detailed investigation if they started in July, but that would've given the GOP time to find a better substitute that she couldn't block. That was a political play without question. But again, Feinstein's not Ford's.
So what about the Roman Polanski rape of an underage female?
He knew he was doing time and evaded punishment by moving to France.
Thing is, if someone is abused when they are young, they never get over it. It's a life long trauma that effects relationships as adults.
IMO there is no time limit on these prosecutions.
My point with posting Tatum O'Neal's stry is, it goes against what Ford claims, and other victims claim. They can usually remember very detail of assaults.
I know two women who were sexually assaulted. One of them 60 years ago, and she can tell you the day, time, place, colour of bathroom tiles, how many sinks were in the room, and myriad other minutae. Most victims can remember details because they re-live, and go over them in their minds constantly. Everyone is different, but Ford's lack of common details, even before she arrived at the party, the need for constant referrals with her lawyers, lies about fear of flying and the need for two escape doors, plus the put-on child-like voice just made it seem false to me.
His testimony sucked, too, but he was reactive to the out-of-left-field accusations. She had much more time to rehearse, and be coached.
As for her rewards - not only will she take in a lot of gofundme money, but there will probably be a book deal. As well, in her uber-liberal, Palo Alto University community, she will be revered as a heroine and be elevated to goddess status.
saw my sp yesterday
and as I was running out the door asked her for her take on kavanaugh
she said ford is enjoying her fifteen minutes of fame, they were young stupid fooling around not knowing what they were doing,
and drinking on top of it all,
in short she doesn't believe it,
or her,
I find it interesting
that people seem to fall into camps, that a women should always be believed,
and male, white knights showing how modern and progressive they are, and feministic
people are coming at this with an agenda, or a preconceived notions or ideas
instead of simply looking at the facts.
and the facts are inconclusive
and forces things going on that makes one suspect, this is rather political as opposed to
simply getting at the truth
and as I was running out the door asked her for her take on kavanaugh
she said ford is enjoying her fifteen minutes of fame, they were young stupid fooling around not knowing what they were doing,
and drinking on top of it all,
in short she doesn't believe it,
or her,
I find it interesting
that people seem to fall into camps, that a women should always be believed,
and male, white knights showing how modern and progressive they are, and feministic
people are coming at this with an agenda, or a preconceived notions or ideas
instead of simply looking at the facts.
and the facts are inconclusive
and forces things going on that makes one suspect, this is rather political as opposed to
simply getting at the truth
Anyone else feel this conversation is going around in circles?
I had a moment where I was thinking I should post a rebuttal to some of these comments but then I realised it would just be a copy-paste of something I wrote a few posts up.
Can I propose that (a) we're all speculating in absence of concrete evidence, (b) that it would be difficult to conceive of what concrete evidence would be that would satisfy everyone here, this many years later, and (c) that we're generally reasonable people who are prioritising different distrusts and thus coming to different conclusions?
It is, as they say, possible for reasonable people to disagree.
In the end I don't think any of us, whichever side you lean toward, are particularly pleased with how this played out.
I had a moment where I was thinking I should post a rebuttal to some of these comments but then I realised it would just be a copy-paste of something I wrote a few posts up.
Can I propose that (a) we're all speculating in absence of concrete evidence, (b) that it would be difficult to conceive of what concrete evidence would be that would satisfy everyone here, this many years later, and (c) that we're generally reasonable people who are prioritising different distrusts and thus coming to different conclusions?
It is, as they say, possible for reasonable people to disagree.
In the end I don't think any of us, whichever side you lean toward, are particularly pleased with how this played out.
it would be a good time for the other shoe to drop,
some one mentioned pattern of behaviour. and I agree you establish guilt by a pattern of behaviour, not just he said she said.
leads me to believe this whole thing was politically motivated.
some one mentioned pattern of behaviour. and I agree you establish guilt by a pattern of behaviour, not just he said she said.
leads me to believe this whole thing was politically motivated.
Interesting reading in the Guardian today.
They are reporting Kavanaugh has been part of the Federalist Society since the Bush Jr administration. It's an old boys network whose priority is to have a conservative SCOTUS.
He was asked about it during the hearings and gave an honest answer although not fully disclosing what is behind "Eureka Club".
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/25/brett-kavanaugh-eureka-club-noel-francisco-emails
Brett Kavanaugh, the new supreme court justice, counts the Trump administration’s solicitor general, who will be arguing cases before the high court on behalf of the president, as a close professional friend, according to emails that offer new insights into an all-male dinner club that Kavanaugh used to attend.
Emails obtained by the Guardian show that Kavanaugh, who was narrowly confirmed to the supreme court earlier this month, participated in monthly evening cocktails and dinners from 2001 to 2003 with a group of men that included Noel Francisco, who now serves as the Trump administration’s solicitor general. It is not clear whether the dinners continued after Kavanaugh became a federal judge in 2006.
Other attendees included a lawyer who is now a top strategic adviser to Rupert Murdoch; the author of the George W Bush-era “torture memos” that were used to justify illegal interrogation techniques; and two lawyers who now frequently appear before the supreme court on behalf of corporate clients.
Sign up for the new US morning briefing
The so-called “Eureka” dinners – named after the college that Ronald Reagan attended – were briefly raised in a written question that was submitted to Kavanaugh by senators following his initial confirmation hearing. Asked what the Eureka Club was, Kavanaugh said in a written response: “A group of friends sometimes gathered for dinner. The scheduling emails for those dinners would sometimes be titled ‘Eureka’.”
Advertisement
What Kavanaugh’s answer did not fully explain was that the dinners were attended by an elite group of men closely associated with the Federalist Society, the rightwing organization that has played a major role in vetting and choosing judicial appointments for Republican presidents since its founding in 1982.
While Kavanaugh has stated his desire to mentor and promote women to the top ranks of the legal profession, there is no evidence that any woman was ever invited to a Eureka dinner, based on the emails the Guardian obtained.
While it would not have been improper for Kavanaugh and other like-minded Bush administration officials to regularly meet for dinner and drinks at that time, new revelations about the identity of his circle of professional friends raise questions about how the close-knit relationships Kavanaugh forged with other lawyers might influence his rulings in the future.
Richard Painter, a critic of Donald Trump who served as the Bush administration’s ethics lawyer from 2005-2007, said senators should have sought more information about the Eureka dinners before Kavanaugh’s confirmation, especially if he continued to attend the regular dinners as a judge on the DC circuit court of appeals.
“For a judge to have regular meetings with certain lawyers is very problematic but apparently the question was never asked,” Painter said.
The Eureka emails seen by the Guardian cover a limited period while Kavanaugh worked for the White House under George W Bush.
John Yoo, who wrote the George W Bush era ‘torture memos’, was a dinner companion of Brett Kavanaugh at the Eureka club.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest John Yoo, who wrote the George W Bush era ‘torture memos’, was a dinner companion of Brett Kavanaugh at the Eureka club. Photograph: Melissa Golden/Getty Images
They show that the dinner companions who Kavanaugh described as “friends” include Viet Dinh, who now serves as a senior legal adviser to Rupert Murdoch and is a godfather to Lachlan Murdoch’s child; John Yoo, who wrote the so-called “torture memos”; and Robert Coughlin, the former deputy chief of staff at the Department of Justice who pleaded guilty to a conflict of interest crime related to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Coughlin was disbarred but reinstated as a lawyer in 2016.
Paul Clement, a lawyer at the firm of Kirkland & Ellis who frequently appears before the supreme court, also attended.
The emails indicate that the men met on the first Monday of every month, usually reserving a table at Bobby Vans restaurant, though they appeared to prefer the Caucus Room, an upscale steakhouse. The dinners were often arranged by Adam Ciongoli, who served as an adviser to then-attorney general John Ashcroft and now works as general counsel of Campbell Soup. Ciongoli is also a member of the Federalist Society.
In one email, Ciongoli wrote: “Gentlemen, Next Monday is the first monday [sic] of July, and an opportunity for us to get back on schedule.” He signed the email: Ciongo.
Emails show that the events sometimes included unspecified “special guests”. Several attendees who were approached by the Guardian declined to comment. They did not dispute that judges were among the special guests who were invited. Eugene Scalia, the conservative lawyer and son of the late Antonin Scalia, the supreme court justice who is considered the ideological father of the Federalist Society, was also included on the Eureka emails. Scalia is a lawyer at Gibson Dunn in Washington whose specialty is labor law.
Asked about solicitor general Noel Francisco’s attendance at the meetings and his friendship with Kavanaugh, Sarah Isgur Flores, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, said: “We encourage judges and advocates to dine, meet and discuss issues of the day here. The SG is often colloquially called the 10th justice of the court … I would say that most SGs have had close relationships with justices including the ones they clerked for, which includes reunions, dinners and frequent calls.”
But Painter, the ethics lawyer, said the DoJ’s stance was problematic, because it did not emphasize that any litigant before the supreme court needed to be treated equally, and that the solicitor general, who is meant to defend the president’s legal position on any case, ought not to have special sway.
“That statement should have pointed out that there should never be ex parte communications,” Painter said, referring to communications about a case between a lawyer and a judge that occurs outside the presence of opposing counsel.
Alex Azar, who now serves as the secretary of health and human services, also attended the dinners. Azar has oversight of the Trump administration’s claimed effort to reunite parents with children who were separated from them under the White House’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policies. Azar also has oversight of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, the healthcare law known as Obamacare. Both issues could come before the court.
Another attendee, according to emails, was Gregory Garre, who served as an assistant to the solicitor general during Bush’s first term and is now a partner at Latham & Watkins. Garre has argued 43 cases before the supreme court. In 2010, Kavanaugh ruled in favour of Garre’s client, an e-cigarrette maker called Sottera, in a case Garre argued before the DC court of appeals.
They are reporting Kavanaugh has been part of the Federalist Society since the Bush Jr administration. It's an old boys network whose priority is to have a conservative SCOTUS.
He was asked about it during the hearings and gave an honest answer although not fully disclosing what is behind "Eureka Club".
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/25/brett-kavanaugh-eureka-club-noel-francisco-emails
Brett Kavanaugh, the new supreme court justice, counts the Trump administration’s solicitor general, who will be arguing cases before the high court on behalf of the president, as a close professional friend, according to emails that offer new insights into an all-male dinner club that Kavanaugh used to attend.
Emails obtained by the Guardian show that Kavanaugh, who was narrowly confirmed to the supreme court earlier this month, participated in monthly evening cocktails and dinners from 2001 to 2003 with a group of men that included Noel Francisco, who now serves as the Trump administration’s solicitor general. It is not clear whether the dinners continued after Kavanaugh became a federal judge in 2006.
Other attendees included a lawyer who is now a top strategic adviser to Rupert Murdoch; the author of the George W Bush-era “torture memos” that were used to justify illegal interrogation techniques; and two lawyers who now frequently appear before the supreme court on behalf of corporate clients.
Sign up for the new US morning briefing
The so-called “Eureka” dinners – named after the college that Ronald Reagan attended – were briefly raised in a written question that was submitted to Kavanaugh by senators following his initial confirmation hearing. Asked what the Eureka Club was, Kavanaugh said in a written response: “A group of friends sometimes gathered for dinner. The scheduling emails for those dinners would sometimes be titled ‘Eureka’.”
Advertisement
What Kavanaugh’s answer did not fully explain was that the dinners were attended by an elite group of men closely associated with the Federalist Society, the rightwing organization that has played a major role in vetting and choosing judicial appointments for Republican presidents since its founding in 1982.
While Kavanaugh has stated his desire to mentor and promote women to the top ranks of the legal profession, there is no evidence that any woman was ever invited to a Eureka dinner, based on the emails the Guardian obtained.
While it would not have been improper for Kavanaugh and other like-minded Bush administration officials to regularly meet for dinner and drinks at that time, new revelations about the identity of his circle of professional friends raise questions about how the close-knit relationships Kavanaugh forged with other lawyers might influence his rulings in the future.
Richard Painter, a critic of Donald Trump who served as the Bush administration’s ethics lawyer from 2005-2007, said senators should have sought more information about the Eureka dinners before Kavanaugh’s confirmation, especially if he continued to attend the regular dinners as a judge on the DC circuit court of appeals.
“For a judge to have regular meetings with certain lawyers is very problematic but apparently the question was never asked,” Painter said.
The Eureka emails seen by the Guardian cover a limited period while Kavanaugh worked for the White House under George W Bush.
John Yoo, who wrote the George W Bush era ‘torture memos’, was a dinner companion of Brett Kavanaugh at the Eureka club.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest John Yoo, who wrote the George W Bush era ‘torture memos’, was a dinner companion of Brett Kavanaugh at the Eureka club. Photograph: Melissa Golden/Getty Images
They show that the dinner companions who Kavanaugh described as “friends” include Viet Dinh, who now serves as a senior legal adviser to Rupert Murdoch and is a godfather to Lachlan Murdoch’s child; John Yoo, who wrote the so-called “torture memos”; and Robert Coughlin, the former deputy chief of staff at the Department of Justice who pleaded guilty to a conflict of interest crime related to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Coughlin was disbarred but reinstated as a lawyer in 2016.
Paul Clement, a lawyer at the firm of Kirkland & Ellis who frequently appears before the supreme court, also attended.
The emails indicate that the men met on the first Monday of every month, usually reserving a table at Bobby Vans restaurant, though they appeared to prefer the Caucus Room, an upscale steakhouse. The dinners were often arranged by Adam Ciongoli, who served as an adviser to then-attorney general John Ashcroft and now works as general counsel of Campbell Soup. Ciongoli is also a member of the Federalist Society.
In one email, Ciongoli wrote: “Gentlemen, Next Monday is the first monday [sic] of July, and an opportunity for us to get back on schedule.” He signed the email: Ciongo.
Emails show that the events sometimes included unspecified “special guests”. Several attendees who were approached by the Guardian declined to comment. They did not dispute that judges were among the special guests who were invited. Eugene Scalia, the conservative lawyer and son of the late Antonin Scalia, the supreme court justice who is considered the ideological father of the Federalist Society, was also included on the Eureka emails. Scalia is a lawyer at Gibson Dunn in Washington whose specialty is labor law.
Asked about solicitor general Noel Francisco’s attendance at the meetings and his friendship with Kavanaugh, Sarah Isgur Flores, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, said: “We encourage judges and advocates to dine, meet and discuss issues of the day here. The SG is often colloquially called the 10th justice of the court … I would say that most SGs have had close relationships with justices including the ones they clerked for, which includes reunions, dinners and frequent calls.”
But Painter, the ethics lawyer, said the DoJ’s stance was problematic, because it did not emphasize that any litigant before the supreme court needed to be treated equally, and that the solicitor general, who is meant to defend the president’s legal position on any case, ought not to have special sway.
“That statement should have pointed out that there should never be ex parte communications,” Painter said, referring to communications about a case between a lawyer and a judge that occurs outside the presence of opposing counsel.
Alex Azar, who now serves as the secretary of health and human services, also attended the dinners. Azar has oversight of the Trump administration’s claimed effort to reunite parents with children who were separated from them under the White House’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policies. Azar also has oversight of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, the healthcare law known as Obamacare. Both issues could come before the court.
Another attendee, according to emails, was Gregory Garre, who served as an assistant to the solicitor general during Bush’s first term and is now a partner at Latham & Watkins. Garre has argued 43 cases before the supreme court. In 2010, Kavanaugh ruled in favour of Garre’s client, an e-cigarrette maker called Sottera, in a case Garre argued before the DC court of appeals.
Main Stream Media Biased? Nah not possible
"While the left-wing mob demands a man’s career be ruined by a vague accusation with no substantiating evidence, this mob has all but forgotten the fact that Prime Minister Trudeau was accused of “groping” a young reporter 18 years ago."
"While the left-wing mob demands a man’s career be ruined by a vague accusation with no substantiating evidence, this mob has all but forgotten the fact that Prime Minister Trudeau was accused of “groping” a young reporter 18 years ago."
some of the allegations against him are falling apart,
that he was part of a group that drugged women and gang raped them,
don't think that was ever credible but now even less so.
that he was part of a group that drugged women and gang raped them,
don't think that was ever credible but now even less so.
