Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Allegations

[tonytiger55]

Anyone watch the Kavanaugh thing today..?

[max_boost]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Anyone watch the Kavanaugh thing today..?

Watched all of it.

Dunno WTF to believe lol

[tonytiger55]

He was screened six times by the FBI after the alleged incident during the normal course of his career.

Why does this come up now? Thats the part I don't get. Its a she said vs he said scenario.

[max_boost]

I don’t believe her.

[tonytiger55]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

lol wut? https://www.wsj.com/articles/woman-a...009-1538352671

I read this the other day... its bizzare.. it raises more questions about the woman than anything else. I mean what was she doing in the room? Did Ronaldo need help wiping his arse because he so vain..?

The Kavanaugh case gets interesting.

This is the leaked memo.

http://pdf.iwv.org/09.30.18%20Mitchell%20Memo.pdf

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He was screened six times by the FBI after the alleged incident during the normal course of his career.

Why does this come up now? Thats the part I don't get. Its a she said vs he said scenario.

maybe because she didn't follow his career until he was nominated for one of the most important positions in the US? i'd be willing to bet that 99.5% of people in the US don't follow judge appointments unless its the Supreme Court. and if she was the 0.5% of people that follow non-SC judge appointments, maybe she just didn't feel it was worth getting involved and get into the spotlight and get called out by fox news as a liar.

SCOTUS is another level... to see someone that hurt you be nominated to the highest court in the land is probably when you decide to tell your story.

to me it's a question of "why the fuck would she lie?" does she seem like the type of woman that likes national attention? personally i don't think so.

edit: regarding FBI previously screening him 6 times, realistically how could they possibly find this out? pretty sure they don't try to collect info from everyone who went to neighbouring high schools in 1982

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Kavanaugh case gets interesting.

This is the leaked memo.

http://pdf.iwv.org/09.30.18%20Mitchell%20Memo.pdf

it's the opinion of one prosecutor who was hired by republican senators. Here's two other opinions of prosecutors that disagree, including one from someone that actually used to work for her:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...d-say-its-not/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics...-disingenuous/

at the end of the day it's just purely opinions here... different prosecutors would do different things

[tonytiger55]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

it's the opinion of one prosecutor who was hired by republican senators. Here's two other opinions of prosecutors that disagree, including one from someone that actually used to work for her:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...d-say-its-not/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics...-disingenuous/

at the end of the day it's just purely opinions here... different prosecutors would do different things

Interesting points.
The washington post article pretty badly written. It makes zero sense. I don't understand the angle the writer is getting at. On one hand the writer is saying she(Rachel Mitchell) should not go about it in this particular way, but then the writer flips it by stating that was not what Rahel was brought in for. Which brings into question then why raise the first point in the first place..? What is the writer going on about?

The writer raises a interesting point. 'Kavanaugh’s demeanor during questioning is relevant — was he hesitant or hostile? Evasive or not responsive?'. The poor bugger is being accused. How should ones demanour be? The guy was angry, emotional. Should he be stone dead silent? Or is this an attempt to shame when he shows his emotions?

I think the washington post article is trying to create an argument for something that is not there and missing the key points.

The second article is even worse. Its stating timeline is irrelevant, the house where the event took place and the details are irrelevant. What bollocks did I just read?

So what part is relevant then..?

If person says you attacked them back in the 80's when you a young adult. They cant recall where it was, how they got there, how they left, or when it was. But its ok, its not relevant. Like wtf?

How does that person prove it actually happened?
The simpliest answer is to have a independant forensic investigation, which is the police or FBI. The polygraph was not done by these agencies, why would you have a third party do this and not the police.. this is dumb. A Police/ FBI investigation is not going to get to the bottom of this in one week either.

The whole alligation/situation appears to be contrived knowlingly this would happen, but to do as much reputational damage as possible and to stir up emotion amongst the #metoo and feminists. Kavanaugh then gets appointed because lack of evidence. But this does not matter. The left and democrats get ammuntion that the establishment is against them and women and they are the victims. Come the elections.. emotions run high..
Holy shit.. now that I think about it, its rather genius.

edit: regarding FBI previously screening him 6 times, realistically how could they possibly find this out? pretty sure they don't try to collect info from everyone who went to neighbouring high schools in 1982

Its a good question. I would guess they are looking at the overal scope of the character. Patterns of behaviour and past allegations made etc.
How could they find out if he never did this in the first place? Are we forgetting the fact that he might be innocent..? Lets not forget, the bugger is innocent till proven guilty. Maybe they could have found out if Dr. Ford reported it. But could she report it..? Its at a time where police would just probably tell her to go away. We also have to remember, these are very young adults. How much stupid shit have we all done when we were that age? Im not the same idiot I was when I was 17. But is Dr.Ford seeing him now as he was when they were in thier teens? Is she being bitter...?

The key points that keep getting ignored is can someone be make a alligation against you from fragmented memory. Then ONE has to prove himself innocent against someones thoughts? (Side story, a ex female friend of mine had a dream her bf was unfaithful. She was mad at him the next day. He did not know why and had to prove he was a guy that would not do this kinda of thing. I even told her that this was the most dumb thing ever and she needs to grow up. She would not let it go and even started arguing with me.)

If so, then what is stopping anyone from doing this? Do we abandon our civic processes and move towards a system where its more a witch hunt and careers are destroyed? What are yours or anyone elses thoughts..?

[Tik-Tok]

I don't know enough of the situation to judge it, but, gotta good laugh at the "devils triangle is a drinking game" bullshit answer, lol.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

maybe because she didn't follow his career until he was nominated for one of the most important positions in the US?

Hahahaha fuck off.

If she cared, she would have went to anyone EXCEPT the democrats. She's a registered democrat, has been at protest rallies, etc etc.

This is nothing more or less than a smear campaign against the guy, he has every right to be furious.

But further to that, if you truly do #believe, we should probably go to the RCMP right now. Because since you #believe, I have an assault claim to make against you, and since everyone needs to be believed, we need the RCMP to tear apart your life to get to the bottom of it.

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He was screened six times by the FBI after the alleged incident during the normal course of his career.

Why does this come up now? Thats the part I don't get. Its a she said vs he said scenario.

True or not, Kavanaugh acted like a little bitch on stands.

[max_boost]

I'm glad she has been able to lead such a successful career despite this horrible thing (allegedly) that happened to her in high school.

[HiTempguy1]

Can't make this shit up

Kavanaugh accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford co-authored a study published in May of 2008 that cites hypnosis as a way to retrieve memories from traumatized patients.

She's basically a quack. Why do people keep calling her doctor? Because she has a phd?? :nuts:

[Brent.ff]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why do people keep calling her doctor? Because she has a phd?? :nuts:

Yeah. That's how it works... surprised?

[lilmira]

Dr Dre, Dr pepper....It's not that big of a deal. You can call your left nut dr nut if you want.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Don't have time to read it right now but there is a front page reddit thead on some text messages and Kavanaugh apparently perjuring himself - seems interesting if it turns out to be true:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueMidterm...jured_himself/

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Don't have time to read it right now but there is a front page reddit thead on some text messages and Kavanaugh apparently perjuring himself - seems interesting if it turns out to be true:

You would expect the MSM to be honest?

There's just one problem: the NBC News story leaves out a key detail. Kavanaugh admitted, in a deposition conducted by Senate Judiciary Committee investigators, that he knew Ramirez was looking for dirt and calling around to a handful of shared acquaintances trying to substantiate her own claims, and that he discussed the flurry of activity with an "inner circle" of associates.

Doh! But hey, its not #fakenews amirite?

[01RedDX]

.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Trumps comments haha...wow.

I do agree with one part though, and it's that nobody should be punished without being proven guilty, as was the case with so many of the Hollywood accused (if you're in politics though it seems you are far more protected). There are some pretty questionable things with Kavanaugh though.

[joker]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Trumps comments haha...wow.

I do agree with one part though, and it's that nobody should be punished without being proven guilty, as was the case with so many of the Hollywood accused (if you're in politics though it seems you are far more protected). There are some pretty questionable things with Kavanaugh though.

I would agree if this were an actual trial but this is nothing more than a high profile job interview. I know if I was looking at an applicant and there was a sudden flurry of allegations I would likely pass on them to save myself future headaches.