Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh

[BitPotus]

Funny suddenly no one is cheer leading for Kavanaugh's removal here any more...

Meh this forum attracts all the conspiracy theory crowd .  Most of them are right wing males who for obvious reasons want Kavanaugh.  Site demographics are important even if you want to ignore them LOL.

Not to mention it does get tiring arguing with the knuckle dragging men here who have no interest in anything other than making sure their conservative religious judge gets on the SC.

Funny no one is cheer leading for the actual truth, because that is actually more important than political issues especially when dealing with a lifetime nomination to the SC and a generation of jurisprudence.

Am not American.

Am not "right wing"

I will gladly accept the label of "conspiracy theorist" because I believe that it is a term used for those that actually think for themselves instead of being

mere sheeple.

I have no particular feelings towards Trump.

As an outsider, I think it's absolutely ridiculous how one side is constantly trying to derail the current POTUS.

It's even more laughable when you see those pretending to take the moral high ground while ignoring the blatant unsavory antics of ze Clintons and co.

Can you get any more hypocritical and morally bankrupt?

Also, they lost the elections like ages ago now.

One would think that they would have grown a pair and sucked it up by now.

Instead, it is now a long soap opera with the losing side acting increasingly like a crazy ex girlfriend who cannot understand that she got dumped for

being an absolute psycho and who's just proving to everyone that she is indeed a dangerous unhinged individual though her constant manipulative

tirades.

 

[1714810118]

1714810118

[1714810118]

1714810118

[1714810118]

1714810118

[Quickseller]

It appears there are now two additional claims against Kavanaugh. One is by Deborah Ramirez, who went to Yale with Judge Kavanaugh and claims he exposed himself to her in a college party. Multiple witnesses have said this did not happen nor that they heard about this until Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. The other is apparently represented by the Creepy Porn Lawyer, who in my opinion has no credibility but will be sure to make a circus.

[BADecker]

Could it be that Trump backers are the ones who hired these dem people to accuse K just to make the dems look bad when the accusations are shown to be frivolous?

[BitPotus]

It appears there are now two additional claims against Kavanaugh. One is by Deborah Ramirez, who went to Yale with Judge Kavanaugh and claims he exposed himself to her in a college party. Multiple witnesses have said this did not happen nor that they heard about this until Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. The other is apparently represented by the Creepy Porn Lawyer, who in my opinion has no credibility but will be sure to make a circus.

I guess it's only fair that investigations are opened into the Bill Clinton allegations then.

Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwXweiRjckI

Watch that and tell me that's normal behaviour.

I mean, if you're going to go fully nuclear on that kind of behaviour, then you clean house completely.

You don't just selectively destroy targets that suit your agenda.

[CoinCube]

Second Kavanaugh Accuser Materializes Alleging Sexual Misconduct At Yale
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-23/second-kavanaugh-accuser-materializes-alleging-sexual-misconduct-yale

For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.

After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.
...
Meanwhile, lawyer Michael Avenatti - best known for representing adult entertainer Stephanie Clifford, said on Twitter that he represents a woman "with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh," and that his client is not Ramirez.

In a statement, Kavanaugh wrote, "This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name—and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building—against these last-minute allegations.

[Spendulus]

....
You don't just selectively destroy targets that suit your agenda.

That's exactly what they think they deserve to be able to do.

[TECSHARE]

Could it be that Trump backers are the ones who hired these dem people to accuse K just to make the dems look bad when the accusations are shown to be frivolous?

Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake. He is too smart to take such a risk, and he doesn't need to.

[Moloch]

aaand begin...

Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez/amp

(...)
A third male student then exposed himself to her. “I remember a penis being in front of my face,” she said. “I knew that’s not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.” She recalled remarking, “That’s not a real penis,” and the other students laughing at her confusion and taunting her, one encouraging her to “kiss it.” She said that she pushed the person away, touching it in the process. Ramirez, who was raised a devout Catholic, in Connecticut, said that she was shaken. “I wasn’t going to touch a penis until I was married,” she said. “I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated.” She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. “Brett was laughing,” she said. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.” She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. “Somebody yelled down the hall, ‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face,’ ” she said. “It was his full name. I don’t think it was just ‘Brett.’ And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there.”
(...)

Kavanaugh sticks his penis in a girl's face, and her first reaction is to say, "That's not a real penis", lmao... Poor Brett

[suchmoon]

It appears there are now two additional claims against Kavanaugh. One is by Deborah Ramirez, who went to Yale with Judge Kavanaugh and claims he exposed himself to her in a college party. Multiple witnesses have said this did not happen nor that they heard about this until Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. The other is apparently represented by the Creepy Porn Lawyer, who in my opinion has no credibility but will be sure to make a circus.

For any crime you can find multiple witnesses who didn't see it happening.

The Ramirez allegation refutes some of the previous counter-arguments:

1) There is more than one woman now.
2) Kavanaugh was 18 at the time.
3) There seems to be at least one person with a contemporaneous corroboration.

What's the excuse now for not conducting an investigation?

[Flying Hellfish]

What's the excuse now for not conducting an investigation?

Midterms LDO      

Oh wait you mean the new made up reasons the republicans will use, gotcha now!

[Quickseller]

What's the excuse now for not conducting an investigation?

IDK, maybe the fact that news outlets with a heavy left leaning bias, such as the New York Times, the Washington post, and NBC news declined to run the story because of a lack of corroboration.

The New Yorker story is based on hearsay from unnamed source (singular), and multiple people who would have knowledge of the party are on the record saying it didn’t happen.

I would not take anything the creepy porn lawyer says seriously. If you are the victim of a crime, especially a serious crime, I would suggest not retaining his services because I won’t take any evidence seriously and will go into hearing your story as being made up for political purposes. 

[suchmoon]

The New Yorker story is based on hearsay from unnamed source (singular)

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

The name is Deborah Ramirez - it's in the URL even.

I would not take anything the creepy porn lawyer says seriously. If you are the victim of a crime, especially a serious crime, I would suggest not retaining his services because I won’t take any evidence seriously and will go into hearing your story as being made up for political purposes.  

Nothing to do with the above.

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044013350873489409


Edited 2020-11-29 to fix a broken image

So let's try again - why no investigation yet? Two women, two separate incidents, both asking for investigation so if they're lying that would be a huge boost for Trump, McConnell, et al ahead of midterms.

[CoinCube]

So let's try again - why no investigation yet? Two women, two separate incidents, both asking for investigation so if they're lying that would be a huge boost for Trump, McConnell, et al ahead of midterms.

Oh I don't know maybe because there is no accusation of a crime that is not well beyond the statute of limitations..

Or maybe its because all 8 of the people the two accusers state were present at the time of the assault are already on record with various media outlets and all of their testimony supports Kavanaugh.

Or maybe it's because the demands for investigation have every appearance of a transparent political ploy that has nothing to do with seeking truth.

Or perhaps it's because this is ultimately a question of suitability for office and the constitution clearly assigns this duty to the Senate which also has the power of the subpoena to carry it out.

[CoinCube]

Kavanaugh denies sexual misconduct in Fox News exclusive: 'I know I'm telling the truth'
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/24/kavanaugh-denies-sexual-misconduct-in-fox-news-exclusive-know-im-telling-truth.html

Interesting video interview with Kavanaugh and his wife.

[suchmoon]

Oh I don't know maybe because there is no accusation of a crime that is not well beyond the statute of limitations..

Not really true (no statute of limitations in Maryland AFAIK) but I'm talking about a background check on Mr. Kavanaugh, not a criminal investigation.

Or maybe its because all 8 of the people the two accusers state were present at the time of the assault are already on record with various media outlets and all of their testimony supports Kavanaugh.

Media is the wrong place to do that. A proper investigation would be better.

Or maybe it's because the demands for investigation have every appearance of a transparent political ploy that has nothing to do with seeking truth.

Or perhaps it's because this is ultimately a question of suitability for office and the constitution clearly assigns this duty to the Senate which also has the power of the subpoena to carry it out.

Yet the FBI often conducts background investigations for appointments like this. Even more so if it's a "political ploy" - why should we entrust this to the hyper-politicized Senate instead of a law enforcement agency?

[TECSHARE]

Oh I don't know maybe because there is no accusation of a crime that is not well beyond the statute of limitations..

Not really true (no statute of limitations in Maryland AFAIK) but I'm talking about a background check on Mr. Kavanaugh, not a criminal investigation.

Or maybe its because all 8 of the people the two accusers state were present at the time of the assault are already on record with various media outlets and all of their testimony supports Kavanaugh.

Media is the wrong place to do that. A proper investigation would be better.

Or maybe it's because the demands for investigation have every appearance of a transparent political ploy that has nothing to do with seeking truth.

Or perhaps it's because this is ultimately a question of suitability for office and the constitution clearly assigns this duty to the Senate which also has the power of the subpoena to carry it out.

Yet the FBI often conducts background investigations for appointments like this. Even more so if it's a "political ploy" - why should we entrust this to the hyper-politicized Senate instead of a law enforcement agency?

When a shred of physical evidence supporting these stories emerges let me know. Until then it is quite convenient that the "due diligence" in this matter just so happens to benefit the Democrats regardless of veracity for the short term regarding mid term elections. I am sure the timing of the reports of these supposed assaults has nothing at all to do with the veracity of their statements. It must be a complete coincidence this was released days before the confirmation hearing. The stalling for more time also must be a coincidence, along with the first accuser's clear democratic and intelligence ties. All just a bunch of happy coincidences right?

Regarding law enforcement, perhaps they should try FILING CRIMINAL CHARGES if they want an investigation. Of course they won't because they know filing false charges is a serious crime.

So you are correct, why should we believe a hyper-politicized congress intentionally hijacking our normal judicial process to delay it for their benefit? Oh right because it serves your ideological goals.  

[suchmoon]

When a shred of physical evidence supporting these stories emerges let me know. Until then it is quite convenient that the "due diligence" in this matter just so happens to benefit the Democrats regardless of veracity for the short term regarding mid term elections. I am sure the timing of the reports of these supposed assaults has nothing at all to do with the veracity of their statements. It must be a complete coincidence this was released days before the confirmation hearing. The stalling for more time also must be a coincidence, along with the first accuser's clear democratic and intelligence ties. All just a bunch of happy coincidences right?

Regarding law enforcement, perhaps they should try FILING CRIMINAL CHARGES if they want an investigation. Of course they won't because they know filing false charges is a serious crime.

So you are correct, why should we believe a hyper-politicized congress intentionally hijacking our normal judicial process to delay it for their benefit? Oh right because it serves your ideological goals.  

My goals? Pray tell what are those? Or is it just the customary ad hominem when you run out of arguments?

A job interview is not a criminal case. Whether this benefits one side or another - remains to be seen. My guess is that nobody is gonna come out a clear winner out of this. Republicans can "plow right through" (excellent attack ad material right there) and risk alienating a good part of the largest demographic group of the electorate. Democrats can try stalling this as much as they can but they don't have any winning strategy if Republicans decide to stick with Kavanaugh. So it's a demolition derby basically. Who can crawl across the finish line.

None of it is a good reason to refuse to investigate these allegations though. If the accusers are lying the fallout would set a precedent for decades. Same if they're not. Both positive outcomes as far as I can see.

[Quickseller]

Whether this benefits one side or another - remains to be seen.

You are glossing over the fact that any delay will benefit the Democrats.

You are also ignoring the fact that all the evidence the FBI could potentially gather has already been made public, and that the FBI does not make determinations as to the credibility of witnesses in background check investigations, so the Washington Post and Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker appear to have done everything the FBI could have done, although I have doubts that the information in the New Yorker article would meet the standard to make it in any FBI background check report.

The Senate Judiciary committee is already investigating Kavanaugh and the evidence is all more or less public and/or is being made public.

The women from CA should file a police report if she believes she is the victim of a crime. The reasons victims of these types of crimes do not go to the police do not exist in her case anymore because she has very much gone public with her story. Obviously she will not do this because it is a crime to file a false police report. 

[Spendulus]

Whether this benefits one side or another - remains to be seen.

You are glossing over the fact that any delay will benefit the Democrats.

You are also ignoring the fact that all the evidence the FBI could potentially gather has already been made public, and that the FBI does not make determinations as to the credibility of witnesses in background check investigations, so the Washington Post and Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker appear to have done everything the FBI could have done, although I have doubts that the information in the New Yorker article would meet the standard to make it in any FBI background check report.

The Senate Judiciary committee is already investigating Kavanaugh and the evidence is all more or less public and/or is being made public.

The women from CA should file a police report if she believes she is the victim of a crime. The reasons victims of these types of crimes do not go to the police do not exist in her case anymore because she has very much gone public with her story. Obviously she will not do this because it is a crime to file a false police report. 

I believe it is fair to say this, though. She reported her beliefs prior to the Kavanaugh hearings. It was Fienstien that kept silent about her letter and reported it at the 11th hour.

Nobody would have complained about these charges being introduced at the proper time.

[suchmoon]

You are glossing over the fact that any delay will benefit the Democrats.

It's not a fact. Republicans have about 3 months remaining in the current session and very likely will maintain control of the Senate beyond that as well. They have better options than what they're currently doing. They can use the investigation to clear Kavanaugh's name. They can nominate someone else. There are no good options for Democrats, delay or no delay.

That's all assuming the allegations are false. If the allegations are true - that could benefit Democrats but without the control of the Senate there is not much they can do anyway.

You are also ignoring the fact that all the evidence the FBI could potentially gather has already been made public

Again, not a fact. You can't possibly know that.

and that the FBI does not make determinations as to the credibility of witnesses in background check investigations, so the Washington Post and Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker appear to have done everything the FBI could have done, although I have doubts that the information in the New Yorker article would meet the standard to make it in any FBI background check report.

Ridiculous. Lets replace the FBI with "fake news media" then? Of course the FBI can do a lot more. And lying to the FBI is not the same as lying to journalists.

The Senate Judiciary committee is already investigating Kavanaugh and the evidence is all more or less public and/or is being made public.

The women from CA should file a police report if she believes she is the victim of a crime. The reasons victims of these types of crimes do not go to the police do not exist in her case anymore because she has very much gone public with her story. Obviously she will not do this because it is a crime to file a false police report.  

Again, a job interview is not a criminal case. The criminal investigation may or may not happen before or after the confirmation. I would think it's better to ensure it doesn't happen after, i.e. the nominee should be fully investigated before. The optics of a criminal investigation of a SCOTUS judge would be not ideal, to put it mildly.