# Defending Brett Kavanaugh



## basilio (24 September 2018)

Donald Trump has proposed  Brett Kavanaugh as his Supreme Court nominee. At 53 he would sit on the Supreme Court for potentially 25-30 years. 

Is he fit for office ?

Kavanaugh 
* Brett Kavanaugh faces second allegation of sexual misconduct *
Deborah Ramirez, who attended Yale with Kavanaugh, has described a drunken party during which genitals were thrust in her face

Oliver Laughland in New York and Ben Jacobs in Washington

Sun 23 Sep 2018 21.28 EDT   Last modified on Sun 23 Sep 2018 21.52 EDT

*Shares*
87




Brett Kavanaugh is facing a second allegation of sexual misconduct from his youth Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh faces a second allegation of sexual misconduct after another woman came forward accusing him of inappropriate sexual behaviour during his college years at Yale University.

The New Yorker magazine reported on Sunday evening that a 53-year-old woman, Deborah Ramirez, who attended university with Kavanaugh, has alleged that the judge appeared to have thrust his genitals in her face at a drunken party during their freshman year in 1983-4 academic calendar. She said she clearly remembers the judge, then a teenager, pulling up his pants after a penis was thrust in her face during a drinking game. She also accused Kavanaugh of laughing at her in the aftermath and has said the FBI should investigate the incident.

The judge already faces a separate allegation of sexual assault made by Christine Blasey Ford, a professor at Palo Alto University, who claims Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault her at a drunken high school party in the early 1980s.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-allegation-sexual-misconduct-deborah-ramirez


----------



## basilio (24 September 2018)

Another  sexual misconduct bombshell has been lobbed into the Brett Kavanaugh nominee discussion.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 September 2018)

We all do stupid things as teenagers, but for a Supreme Court judge there has to be high standards.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 September 2018)

How old was he when this happened? 17,18? Drunk, etc. Probably watched too many stupid teen movies like Animal House before he went to college.
I am sure that as a 53 year old he is quite a different person. I am not sure that this sort of misconduct should make him ineligible. there doesn't seem to be any more recent incidents. Then again it's a very important position. (Think of the present and some past Presidents, much more problematic)


----------



## Darc Knight (24 September 2018)

Not totally sure of all the facts but the one thing that stands out is Trump's responce. He Trump apparently contradicted himself from what he said at a Rally and what he then said on Twitter. Trump PR machine in overdrive - BS meter about to break.


----------



## basilio (24 September 2018)

The conversations  could  go in a number of directions.
1) Brett acknowledges he did some dumb, nasty  things as a drunken teenager. Not rape or sexual assault reallly... but "rapey" behaviour. So far he has stated he never, ever did anything of the sort and  therefore...

2) These allegations are pure fiction dreamt up by highly creditentialled  female Professors just to drop him in the poo and keep him from being a Supreme Court judge for the next 25 years

Another possible direction recognises that attempting to prove or disprove these events is going to be exceptionally messy and almost impossible. But then the question would be asked about the character of this new Supreme Court Judge and whether this cloud is sufficient to say he shouldn't be on the bench of the Supreme Court.

Lastly. The two public allegations to date deal with individual behaviours. The Avenatti email  however suggests Brett and Mark Judge systemically organised/took part in frat parties where younger girls were gang banged as they become drunk or drugged. If this is true then
1) There is every likelihood that other witnesses will come forward
2) Brett Kavanaugh would almost certainly be deemed unsuitable for public office.

Brett and his friends were going to Ivy League colleges and represented the cream of society.


----------



## basilio (24 September 2018)

The challenge of "who to believe" and "what actually happened" in these drunken parties is revealed in Ronan Farrows story in the New Yorker..  

Well worth a read IMO

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...rett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez


----------



## Tisme (24 September 2018)

Victim of the mid term elections with socialists trying to smear the republicans


----------



## Darc Knight (24 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> Victim of the mid term elections with socialists trying to smear the republicans




You just speculating or have an argument?


----------



## Knobby22 (24 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> You just speculating or have an argument?



Just baiting imo.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 September 2018)

Whatever happened to proof ?


----------



## basilio (24 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Whatever happened to proof ?



Of what ?


----------



## SirRumpole (24 September 2018)

basilio said:


> Of what ?




Of allegations made about events decades ago ?

Witnesses, confirming evidence etc ?

Otherwise people might think it's just character assassination.

The guy may be a complete drop kick for all I know but if someone is going to ruin his career at least they should have to come up with evidence.


----------



## Darc Knight (24 September 2018)

I gotta say, if you were a person who had spent a lifetime building a good reputation, then had Donald Trump appoint you to the Supreme Court you'd have second thoughts about having your reputation sullied by being associated with Trump.


----------



## basilio (24 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Of allegations made about events decades ago ?
> 
> Witnesses, confirming evidence etc ?
> 
> ...




Read the background to the accusations. There is plenty there to warrant an investigation. The article I referenced by Ronan Farrow was a good start. There are many others.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 September 2018)

basilio said:


> Read the background to the accusations. There is plenty there to warrant an investigation. The article I referenced by Ronan Farrow was a good start. There are many others.




Yeah well, he said, she said, in the fog of alcohol induced haze, I doubt if it's anything that could be proved in a court decades later.


----------



## wayneL (24 September 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> How old was he when this allegedly happened? )



Corrected for accuracy.

I am stunned by the irony of a man that will be charged to uphold the utmost highest quality of evidence,  is Being sullied by the lowest quality evidence...  Almost inadmissible  edvidence.


----------



## Tisme (24 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> You just speculating or have an argument?




Repeating the press comments in USA


----------



## Tisme (24 September 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Just baiting imo.




Do your homework


----------



## basilio (24 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Yeah well, he said, she said, in the fog of alcohol induced haze, I doubt if it's anything that could be proved in a court decades later.




Perhaps. But then isn't that even more reason to have a proper FBI investigation to assess all the evidence and clear the matter up properly ?  
Rather than just dismissing it out of hand ?


----------



## SirRumpole (24 September 2018)

basilio said:


> Perhaps. But then isn't that even more reason to have a proper FBI investigation to assess all the evidence and clear the matter up properly ?
> Rather than just dismissing it out of hand ?




Sure why not. For a supposed Supreme Court judge it would be justified.


----------



## basilio (24 September 2018)

Of course there may be other reasons why the Republicians don't want the FBI to assess the evidence against Bret Kavanaugh.

*Air pollution rots our brains. Is that why we don’t do anything about it? *
James Bridle
Carbon monoxide and lead make us intellectually slower and less flexible. We can’t ignore these dangers any longer
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...r-pollution-cognitive-improvement-environment

...We’re only just beginning to understand how the air we breathe affects not just our physical environment, but our mental capacity as well. And the air we breathe is changing in the long term, as well as the short. Rising carbon dioxide levels – the main driver of climate change – aren’t just a hazard to the earth and other living creatures, they’re also affecting our thinking. At higher levels, CO2 clouds the mind: it makes us slower and less likely to develop new ideas, it degrades our ability to take in new information, change our minds, or formulate complex thoughts.


----------



## sptrawler (24 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> Repeating the press comments in USA



Don't you think the U.S and Australia, are moving toward a guilty until proven innocent model, the press says something, then everyone spends months trying to unravel the truth.
This new paradigm must be causing a huge amount of inefficiency in the system, the amount of effort and lost productivity watching and discussing this weeks 'news agenda', must be colossal especially with the 24/7 news cycle.
If they can't come up with proof of printed accusations, they should be fined. IMO
We could probably increase the dole, on the back of money reaped from women's magazines.
Probably put this in the wrong thread, by the way, who is Brett Kavanough?


----------



## Tisme (24 September 2018)

sptrawler said:


> .........Probably put this in the wrong thread, by the way, who is Brett Kavanough?




hahaha I like that.

Yes the fourth estate is interfering in the situation instead of journalising it. Of course it wouldn't succeed if it lacked an audience, but the Mr Limbkins, one and all, are making sure that won't happen soon.

They are even getting the woman who claimed rape by Clinton to testify as a character witness in an unrelated hearing.


----------



## luutzu (24 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> We all do stupid things as teenagers, but for a Supreme Court judge there has to be high standards.




Attempted rape is not one of those "stupid things" teenagers do.


----------



## luutzu (24 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> I gotta say, if you were a person who had spent a lifetime building a good reputation, then had Donald Trump appoint you to the Supreme Court you'd have second thoughts about having your reputation sullied by being associated with Trump.




By what I've heard of Kavo's career... it's not a lifetime of doing good that got him to where he is.


----------



## Tisme (25 September 2018)

Democrats will be hoping their stall tactics result in more spurious claims:

"
The White House called the allegation part of a "coordinated smear campaign" against Kavanaugh.

"This 35-year-old, uncorroborated claim is the latest in a coordinated smear campaign by the Democrats designed to tear down a good man," White House spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement to The New Yorker. "This claim is denied by all who were said to be present and is wholly inconsistent with what many women and men who knew Judge Kavanaugh at the time in college say. The White House stands firmly behind Judge Kavanaugh."

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/2nd-kavan...s-learned-123504911--abc-news-topstories.html


----------



## Tisme (25 September 2018)

Are republican fanning the flames too?

"However, the strategists claim Republican candidates in the November elections would be able to use that anger to their advantage by fueling the flames of partisanship."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...idterms-kavanaugh-blocked-20180920-story.html


----------



## Knobby22 (25 September 2018)

He's in anyway. The Republicans want to resolve it by the election and they will get Kavanagh in no matter what. There is no time for a replacement.


----------



## basilio (25 September 2018)

Apparently there will be a third woman making a sexual misconduct allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. Of course he still  has a long way to go to beat the current record of "spurious" sexual assault charges (20) against Donald Trump. 

He certainly wouldn't want to upstage his mentor would he..

* Brett Kavanaugh: third woman expected to make accusations of sexual misconduct *
Attorney Michael Avenatti says third woman ‘reached out’ about sexual misconduct allegations against supreme court nominee

Joanna Walters in New York

 @Joannawalters13 
Mon 24 Sep 2018 17.00 EDT   Last modified on Mon 24 Sep 2018 18.49 EDT

*Shares*
12k

A third woman is expected to publicly make accusations of sexual misconduct against supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh this week, her attorney Michael Avenatti said, plunging the judge’s confirmation to America’s highest court into further uncertainty.

“She reached out to me. We vetted her claim and she satisfactorily passed that vetting,” Avenatti said of the new accuser in an interview with the Guardian on Monday.

Avenatti said the woman has also asked to testify at a hearing before the Senate judiciary committee on Thursday, which will hear from California professor Christine Blasey Ford, who has alleged the judge drunkenly sexually assaulted her while in high school.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...cted-to-make-accusations-of-sexual-misconduct


----------



## basilio (25 September 2018)

Overview of the current situation regarding Brett Kavanaugh allegations from Vox.

*What we know — and still don’t — about the sexual misconduct allegations against Brett Kavanaugh*
*There are now possibly three allegations of sexual misconduct.*
By Li Zhouli@vox.com  Updated  Sep 24, 2018, 10:03am EDT

Two women have now accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, and attorney Michael Avenatti says that a third has “credible information” as well.

Christine Blasey Ford, a Palo Alto University professor who’s accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assaulting her in high school, and Deborah Ramirez, a former classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale who’s also accused him of sexual misconduct, both want an FBI investigation. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called Sunday night for all confirmation proceedings to halt until an investigation can be conducted.

*A big reason for this push? The FBI might not be able to weigh in on the credibility of their allegations, but the agency can conduct a fact-finding review that could help shed more light on the alleged incidents, Democrats say. By doing an in-depth probe — something that would include interviews with witnesses — the FBI could provide a better assessment of the evidence surrounding the allegations. *

It’s the kind of assessment that’s especially vital in this case, which has become overrun with misinformation and contradictory accounts, argues Vox’s Anna North.

Absent an official investigation, what we have are Ford, Ramirez and Kavanaugh’s own statements, secondhand impressions from other witnesses, and a lot of haphazard character testimony. Here’s what we know so far about what Ford, Ramirez, and Kavanaugh have said, as well as the context that’s come out about their respective backgrounds. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/22/17886814/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-deborah-ramirez


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2018)

Lets start with ford.
Zero evidence. 

A lie detector test before she accused ford by name and scripted by her lawyer.
All witnesses have said they have no knowledge on what she is talking about (last check).

Meetings with a active Democrat lawyer and is herself an active Democrat 2 months  before.

Scrubbed her social media clean.

 Is dictating how her appearance should go. She wanted to appear after Kavanaugh testimony instead of giving him a right to defend. I'd question if she will testify under oath.

Fbi don't investigate sexual assault cases such as this and have already refused. There is no evidence, witnesses, or crime scene. They do character assessments to check you are not a foreign agent or anything else damaging to the country.

Its very possible she was raped then attributed it to Kavanaugh. But it sure as hell smells like a smear job.

The others that came out were of lower credibility and witnesses have already denied knowledge.
By these standards,  alien butt probed survivors should be credible as well. 

All dems need to do is delay the vote. All this information was available weeks before but they played it at the end to delay further. It should have been done at the start of confirmation where it would have been investigated and been dealt with. 

But no....  the dems played it as the ace up their sleeve. Time is running out and if dems win the house then gops pick is toast. Thats why they want to delay as long as possible. Gop will have control with Kavanaugh.
Dems will also use the "women" card come midterms. Its a perceived "win-win" for dems.

Did Kavanaugh do it?  It's always a possibility. But the manner in which this has come about screams "smear job"


----------



## basilio (25 September 2018)

Very , VERY selective in your choice of "evidence" aren't you  Moxjo.

You know if I was about to accuse a wanna be Supreme Court Judge for an assault 35 years ago and incur the wrath and death threats of the right wing clansman - I would also spare any social media friends similiar grief.  So well done there.

As far trying to ensure she gets a fair hearing vs a Senate Committe that * really *doesn't want to know about this story ? Again what a surprise.  Perhaps she and her lawyer saw the disgraceful stitch up in 1992 of Anita Hill   in her testimony against the then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

There are more complete pictures of Christine Fords background and corrorobating evidence. And anyway there is no chance a court could find proof beyond reasonable doubt in this case.

But then Bret Kavanaugh is not in a court of law. It is a hearing to investigate his fitness to be a Supreme Court Judge for the next 30 years. Perhaps his character does need to be examined more fully -  not just his willingness to protect Doinald Trump from any prosecution while he is office. 

the kavanaugh hearings  Sept. 19, 2018
*Another Judge, Another Woman, Another Slap in the Face*
https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-and-clarence-thomas-history-repeats-itself.html


PS Guess what ? Brett Kavanaughs latest defense is that
"He was a virgin throughout High School and College"
Yep an absolute paragon of virtue.

I reckon he has just crucified himself.


----------



## basilio (25 September 2018)

Of course we now have to be quite clear about  the implications of Brett Kavanaughs assertion that he was a virgin in High School and for many years later.

It means, or course, that any woman( or man?)  who claims she had sex with Brett during that time is a liar !  It also means that he could never have taken any part in the allegations of group sex with drunken/drugged girls at  frat parties.

Got it?   Great. Meet the new Supreme Court Judge.


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2018)

Evidence.....
Same as all the other rubbish articles that amount to nothing.
Hang him before, huh?


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2018)

basilio said:


> Of course we now have to be quite clear about  the implications of Brett Kavanaughs assertion that he was a virgin in High School and for many years later.
> 
> It means, or course, that any woman( or man?)  who claims she had sex with Brett during that time is a liar !  It also means that he could never have taken any part in the allegations of group sex with drunken/drugged girls at  frat parties.
> 
> Got it?   Great. Meet the new Supreme Court Judge.



Are you saying he is a liar on evidence? 
Or just another #metoo conviction.


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2018)

basilio said:


> Very , VERY selective in your choice of "evidence" aren't you  Moxjo.



No not really.
Just laying out whats going on unlike your "Kavanaugh is a rapists" articles.
The dems unleashed this and have a major reason to want to sink Kavanaugh.
Manufactured evidence is not beyond the Democrats either.


----------



## basilio (25 September 2018)

You don't get it do you moxjo?

Brett Kavanaugh has now publicly stated he was a virgin in High school and for many years afterwards. He went on to say he had no significant sexual activity at all.
These are his words. Freely given.

So I take it one step further. If perchance anyone pipes up and says "Wait a minute folks. Just for the record Brett and I did the deed in High School/whenever" then if Brett is telling the truth *this person has to be a liar. *
Or perhaps Brett has just crucified himself.


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2018)

basilio said:


> You don't get it do you moxjo?
> 
> Brett Kavanaugh has now publicly stated he was a virgin in High school and for many years afterwards. He went on to say he had no significant sexual activity at all.
> These are his words. Freely given.
> ...



He can't prove that either. Anyone can say anything. And in the current climate,  they will.


----------



## Knobby22 (25 September 2018)

He could be telling the truth about being a virgin, getting drunk and letting the old feller out seems to me to indicate he had no clue when it comes to women.


----------



## Tisme (25 September 2018)

Dear Senator Feinstein;

I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court. As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak. Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980’s. He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.

Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.

The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others. Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help. Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh’s hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.

From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from “go for it” to “stop.” At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.

I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.

I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information . It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.

I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.

In confidence, REDACTED.


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> He could be telling the truth about being a virgin, getting drunk and letting the old feller out seems to me to indicate he had no clue when it comes to women.



I have no doubt it happened an awful lot in the past. There was a lot of this culture going on.

But we can't even place him at the scene of the crime (because she doesn't know where)  and zero confirmation from supposed eyewitness accounts. In fact the witnesses have said they don’t remember it happening, or it didn't happen. Thats in both cases.

So where too from there? 
More testimonials from democrats supporters? 
They seem to be coming out of the woodwork and shot down by the supposed "eyewitnesses". 

It's down too he said- she said.


----------



## Knobby22 (25 September 2018)

Yea, we knew that, that was the accusation. That's why he is not accused of rape.
And in his defence he was a minor, pissed and it was a long time ago.
I think it shocked him though as he never did anything like it again. 2 guys against 1 girl though, you can see why she holds a grudge.
He desperately needed a girlfriend. He did get a girlfriend soon after.

The latter thing he allegedly did at the party exposing himself to a drunk girl just shows he was a bit of a dick when drunk. Not really assault. And she was so drunk she might have pinned the wrong guy anyway.

Finally met his wife when they both worked for George Bush in 2001 when he was 35 and no sign of straying since.


----------



## luutzu (25 September 2018)

moXJO said:


> I have no doubt it happened an awful lot in the past. There was a lot of this culture going on.
> 
> But we can't even place him at the scene of the crime (because she doesn't know where)  and zero confirmation from supposed eyewitness accounts. In fact the witnesses have said they don’t remember it happening, or it didn't happen. Thats in both cases.
> 
> ...




I'm sure she knows where. 

And what "culture" was frequent? Rape? That makes it alright does it? Boys will be boys?

Come on man.


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2018)

luutzu said:


> I'm sure she knows where.
> 
> And what "culture" was frequent? Rape? That makes it alright does it? Boys will be boys?
> 
> Come on man.



Are you saying it happened. 
I've had a few mates falsely accused and after a hell of a lot proved themselves innocent. One managed to get her charged.

Accusations are proof of nothing.
I didn't endorse rape or said it was "alright to rape".
 I acknowledged that it did happen a lot. 

Being a lefty I know its natural for you to accuse first though.


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Yea, we knew that, that was the accusation. That's why he is not accused of rape.
> And in his defence he was a minor, pissed and it was a long time ago.
> I think it shocked him though as he never did anything like it again. 2 guys against 1 girl though, you can see why she holds a grudge.
> He desperately needed a girlfriend. He did get a girlfriend soon after.
> ...



Both sides of witnesses said it didn't happen. Or is that possibility too far out there.


----------



## luutzu (25 September 2018)

moXJO said:


> Are you saying it happened.
> I've had a few mates falsely accused and after a hell of a lot proved themselves innocent. One managed to get her charged.
> 
> Accusations are proof of nothing.
> ...




I didn't accused him. A couple of women did. 

Will the FBI take a looksy? According to Trump and the GOP, "it's not what they (the FBI) do".

So I guess it's he said, she said.

And oh, there's Brett's diary he kept since he was 15. It showed that he did not attend whatever party "that woman" claimed she was forced into a room by two guys who planned to rape her.

Shouldn't he be down at the station being questioned by detectives instead of going on TV with his wife proclaiming his virtues and innocence? 

I thought the legal system have procedure handling these kind of allegations. Where if you're accused of rape they call you in, ask a few questions then book a court date to let the judge sort it out. No? Two tiered justice?


Yea, I know there are women who falsely accused others of rape and sexual assault. That doesn't mean it's all false or not worth looking into. 

And you definitely do not ignore it when the woman is accusing a guy with very, very powerful friends. Doing it so publicly like this.


----------



## Knobby22 (25 September 2018)

moXJO said:


> Both sides of witnesses said it didn't happen. Or is that possibility too far out there.



The first one or the second one. I reckon the first one did. The second one, probably not.


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2018)

luutzu said:


> I didn't accused him. A couple of women did.
> 
> Will the FBI take a looksy? According to Trump and the GOP, "it's not what they (the FBI) do".
> 
> ...



Statue of limitations I think? 
It happened to long ago to press charges(I think thats it anyway). They got cosby on a 2002 or 2004 thing.
Also, she needs to go in and give a statement to press charges.

You believe all sides till the evidence reveals it in a better light. Not force "#metoo" onto it and discard evidence for whatever side you pick.


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> The first one or the second one. I reckon the first one did. The second one, probably not.



Sorry that wasn't clear...
Is the possibility that it didn't actually happen not a probability?


----------



## Knobby22 (25 September 2018)

It's a possibility but unlikely.
Christine Ford is a professor at Stanford University. She has a lot to lose. She advised a Congressman in June and asked to keep it secret. As per usual it came out (like what happened in WA).
It was known in 2012 when she told her therapist. Her career is now stuffed. On balance I think it's true.


----------



## luutzu (25 September 2018)

moXJO said:


> Statue of limitations I think?
> It happened to long ago to press charges(I think thats it anyway). They got cosby on a 2002 or 2004 thing.
> Also, she needs to go in and give a statement to press charges.
> 
> You believe all sides till the evidence reveals it in a better light. Not force "#metoo" onto it and discard evidence for whatever side you pick.




There's a statue of limitation on sexual assault/rape?

Maybe Kevo, Thomas and Trump can start an inversed "#metoo" tag.


----------



## Darc Knight (25 September 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> It's a possibility but unlikely.
> Christine Ford is a professor at Stanford University. She has a lot to lose. She advised a Congressman in June and asked to keep it secret. As per usual it came out (like what happened in WA).
> It was known in 2012 when she told her therapist. Her career is now stuffed. On balance I think it's true.




This sounds pretty compelling. This isn't some wannabe Starlet trying to gain publicity. But I'm guessing the Congressman was a Dem, which clouded it a bit.
P.S. it's ''''statute of limitations", not "statue". But I know you guys know that


----------



## Knobby22 (25 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> This sounds pretty compelling. This isn't some wannabe Starlet trying to gain publicity. But I'm guessing the Congressman was a Dem, which clouded it a bit.
> P.S. it's ''''statute of limitations", not "statue". But I know you guys know that



Yea it was a Dem, she betrayed her. Such is politics.


----------



## Tisme (25 September 2018)

luutzu said:


> There's a statue of limitation on sexual assault/rape?
> 
> Maybe Kevo, Thomas and Trump can start an inversed "#metoo" tag.




"Statute"


----------



## SirRumpole (25 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> "Statute"




Like a statute of Venus you mean ?


----------



## basilio (25 September 2018)

I don't believe there is any question of Brett Kavanaugh  being tried for any alleged offence. The questions is whether this incident shows a person who shouldn't be a Supreme Court judge on character grounds.


----------



## Tisme (25 September 2018)

There you go, he kept a diary

https://wokesloth.com/brett-kavanau...source=thegoodlordabove&utm_campaign=bloomjoy


----------



## Darc Knight (25 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> There you go, he kept a diary
> 
> https://wokesloth.com/brett-kavanau...source=thegoodlordabove&utm_campaign=bloomjoy




No entries such as "dear diary, tonight I sexually assaulted a defenseless girl".
 Well there you go, case dismissed!


----------



## luutzu (25 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> "Statute"






I'm no law surgeon McGee.


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> "Statute"



Thats not how my auto correct spells it.


----------



## luutzu (25 September 2018)

moXJO said:


> Thats not how my auto correct spells it.




Statute is a legal term for law and precedents etc.. Statue is a carved piece of marble, always with broken arms


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2018)

luutzu said:


> Statute is a legal term for law and precedents etc.. Statue is a carved piece of marble, always with broken arms




Yeah I know. 
The one time I'm lazy to edit and darkie pings me for it.


----------



## luutzu (25 September 2018)

moXJO said:


> Yeah I know.
> The one time I'm lazy to edit and darkie pings me for it.




Yea, he is a bit of  a prick


----------



## basilio (25 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> There you go, he kept a diary
> 
> https://wokesloth.com/brett-kavanau...source=thegoodlordabove&utm_campaign=bloomjoy




Well... that is.. PRICELESS.. ! Yes indeed the boy still has his 1982 calenders detailing all those special things  teenagers do.
This is the death of satire in the US.

The next candidate for Nomination to the Supreme Court wants to offer a 36 year old calender diary as proof that he didn't do something he really shouldn't have.

And I guess his Republician mates think that's just fine.


----------



## moXJO (25 September 2018)

basilio said:


> Well... that is.. PRICELESS.. ! Yes indeed the boy still has his 1982 calenders detailing all those special things  teenagers do.
> This is the death of satire in the US.
> 
> The next candidate for Nomination to the Supreme Court wants to offer a 36 year old calender diary as proof that he didn't do something he really shouldn't have.
> ...



The worst thing about it is that its more evidence then ford put up. A bloody drinking diary from a pisspot teenager.
At least he wrote it on a bit of paper I suppose. 

What exactly is the "solid" evidence in the whole story at this time?


----------



## basilio (26 September 2018)

What we are learning about the culture around George Town Prep in the early 80's

*Four reasons why Christine Blasey Ford’s credibility keeps rising*


.... Second, we know a lot more about the culture at Georgetown Prep in North Bethesda than we did a week ago. The atmosphere and experiences of contemporaries fit Ford’s recollections. The Post reports:

_They described parties with kegs of beer and bottles of liquor, grain punch, heavy drinking and drug use that took place almost every weekend and even on weeknights in private homes, parks, open fields and golf courses in Maryland and Washington. Until 1986, the drinking age in Washington was 18, and alcohol was easily accessible. Drugs, especially cocaine and quaaludes, were plentiful.

Women who attended those parties remember sexually aggressive behavior by some of the male students that often bordered on assault and was routinely fueled by excessive drinking.

“Most of the guys at these schools were really decent, nice guys, but there was a small minority that was popular and was out of control,” said a woman who attended Georgetown Visitation in the early 1980s and asked not to be identified. “I never got dragged into a bedroom, but that . . . happened to girls all the time.”_

Kavanaugh either participated in this drinking culture (as appears from yearbook comments, as well as comments from his friend Mark Judge), in which case he’s a rotten witness (whose reported inebriation renders him less credible), or he didn’t, in which case there has been an elaborate plot to portray him as an excessive drinker. There has been no effort, so far, to disassociate him from the party culture that existed when he attended the school.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...dibility-keeps-rising/?utm_term=.03010bfd4b6d


----------



## basilio (26 September 2018)

*‘These are the stories of our lives’: Prep school alumni hear echoes in assault claim*

 Joe Heim
September 19
Bettina Lanyi remembers. It was 1986, and she was in eighth grade. She and a friend went to a house in Washington’s Tenleytown neighborhood packed with high school kids, including a throng of boys from Gonzaga College High School and Georgetown Preparatory School. There was a lot of beer. A few fights broke out. Lanyi recalls being pawed and kissed. It freaked her out. She hadn’t been drinking, but her friend, also an eighth-grader, had.

Lanyi turned around to see a large freshman from one of the schools lying on top of her friend. Lanyi, then a petite 13-year-old, shoved the boy and kicked him. The boy was surprised and appealed to Lanyi to let him continue. “I’ll never get her number otherwise,” he told her. She took her friend and left.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...773aa1e33da_story.html?utm_term=.e2c945b77fb6


----------



## Tisme (26 September 2018)

At least these days the males can film the events for posterity. I'm fairly sure the next wave of no go zones will include the abhorrent practice of trying to chat up a women, wearing gold chains on a hairy chest.


----------



## basilio (26 September 2018)

This story adds another twist to Brett Kavanaugh assault allegations.

*My Rapist Apologized*
The Kavanaugh allegations led me to reach out to the man who had assaulted me decades before.

 Sep 21, 2018
Deborah Copaken





A river view from Potomac, MarylandMichael S. Williamson / The Washington Post / Getty

On Friday morning, President Donald Trump tweeted that he has “no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents.”

Let me tell you what life was like as a girl in Montgomery County, Maryland, in the early 1980s. I am a year older than Christine Blasey Ford and a year younger than Brett Kavanaugh. I grew up in Potomac, Maryland, a few miles from both Holton Arms, Ford’s school, and Georgetown Prep, which Kavanaugh attended, but I went to my local public high school, Churchill. Never mind that any girl who was in high school in Potomac during that era knew, through the whisper network, not to go to a Georgetown Prep party alone. That was a given. What was also a given is that “date rape,” as a term, was in its infancy. Most of us thought getting our bodies groped at a high-school party—or anywhere—was the unfortunate price we paid for having them, not something we would ever go to the police to report.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/copaken-kavanaugh/571042/


----------



## basilio (26 September 2018)

*How do you open a conversation with someone who raped you 30 years ago?
*

*The Letter I Wrote My Rapist*

*..*
September 18, 2018

Dear [redacted],

You may not remember me from college. We didn't even meet until the night before graduation. But I have never been able to forget that night or you. The memory, over these past 30 years, comes and goes, but it always pays a visit whenever I hear or read stories of sexual assault between acquaintances. As you can imagine, that's pretty much all the time these days, and this latest Kavanaugh hearing is no exception. In fact, it's been the straw that finally broke this aging camel's back. I realized I could not go on with my life until I finally wrote this letter. I'm shaking, even as I type it.

You were extremely drunk that night, so part of me wonders if you have any idea what I'm even talking about, but overcoming the trauma of that night has been the hardest and most painful work of my adult life. Also its leitmotif. Let me state it as simply as possible, for clarity's sake: you forced yourself on me and pushed yourself into me as I kept saying no.

I have never spoken your name publicly, and I never will. I spoke privately to one of my college roommates, [redacted], and to my friend, [redacted], the next morning, after the assault. I didn't even tell the psychologist at Harvard University Health services when I visited her the next day, between graduation and lunch with my family. [redacted] I just needed to speak with someone to ease the pain of it. To talk it through. To figure out what my rights were. To make a plan. What was I supposed to do, I asked, with this act of violation?

I've asked myself that same question nearly every day since.

The point of this letter is not to frighten you or hurt you or shame you or threaten you with exposure, but rather it is, selfishly, the obvious next step in my own battle to heal. If [redacted] holds any accuracy, you have lead a noble life, and I admire what you've done with it. You have [redacted], you have served your country [redacted] honorably, you have married a smart woman, you [redacted], and I'm assuming you've been a good father to your kids as well, should you have them. There's no way on earth I'd want to hurt any of your loved ones, and you have my solemn promise I never will. [redacted.]

I saw you one time after the assault, ironically at a pro-choice march [redacted] maybe a year or so later. I was living in Paris at the time but had been sent by my photo agency back to the States to cover it. You were [redacted], handing out pro-choice leaflets [redacted.] You saw me and gave me a warm hug hello. We spoke briefly about our work. I was so flummoxed, I mumbled something about having to get back to shooting the march and sank back into the crowd, shaking.

A few years ago, as an exercise, I tried to get into your head that night. I might have mangled it. I might have gotten some of it right. But the idea of this intellectual exercise, which I later published in The Nation, was to see the world from your perspective. To try to have empathy.

I don't hate you. I really don't. I don't hate anyone in general, but I want you to know I don't hate you specifically either. I don't even know what I want from you, in writing this letter, other than to relieve myself of this 30-year burden and to let you know that this thing has haunted me ever since. I recently saw this video, and I found it hopeful, the idea of a perpetrator and his victim finding a place of forgiveness, publicly, together. Perhaps we can privately find ours. Or not. It's up to you, and I will respect whatever choice you make.  

Tonight is the beginning of Yom Kippur, so I feel particularly bad sending this email today, of all days, as I imagine receiving this letter might be painful for you, and I'm sorry about that. But I just read Brett Kavanaugh's yearbook entry, which someone published online, and it once again triggered all the hurt from that night long ago, and as I sat frozen in front of a blank page that needs to be filled by the end of today for my work, I realized that if I didn't finally write and send this, I would never move forward or forgive myself. In fact, I nearly died last summer, after complications from a trachelectomy, and one of my thoughts as I was bleeding out and drifting into oblivion, my daughter weeping at my bedside, was my cowardice at not speaking up and lack of closure about that night. Will this email provide it? Maybe. Maybe not. But I hope it will at least provide a few stitches of mending.

Sincerely,

Deborah Copaken


----------



## wayneL (26 September 2018)

Gaurdian.... Vox....


----------



## basilio (26 September 2018)

Has anyone something thoughtful to say about the last few articles I have posted ?


----------



## SirRumpole (26 September 2018)

basilio said:


> Has anyone something thoughtful to say about the last few articles I have posted ?





Kavanagh is irrelevant to us, he's an American, let them deal with it.


----------



## moXJO (26 September 2018)

basilio said:


> Has anyone something thoughtful to say about the last few articles I have posted ?



Wait on the hearing.
The whole incident is so politicized that any truth was buried. Right now they both should be believed until investigated further. 

Word is that one of the gop senators wants the fbi to investigate. So let the story unfold. 

Any article you post is just speculation or attempts to color the truth. 

Since the threads a bit slow I'll tell a story.
I  had a guy move into my former  street and the local hens (after about a week) came up to our house to warn of a pedophile threat that was our new arrival.

Now I had met this guy he was about 6foot8 150kg, bit off a creepy looking guy if you didn't take the time to know him. 

When I enquired how they knew one informed me her friend from another suburb had told her that he was well known then. I generally don't believe anything and I can sum people up pretty fast in the first meeting.  But with a bunch of young kids I did some digging.

Turned out he was just vilified for the way he looked. 
When I round up the idiots that were spreading the slander they actually say "he looks like a pedo".
They probably didn't enjoy me telling them they are all fcuking idiots.

 That neighborhood war lasted a good 6 months. One husband was so enraged he bashed on my door yelling. Luckily he got sleepy and took a nap on my front lawn. After that he crawled all the way home while I supervised so he would miss the bindy patches.

As for the new neighbor,  possibly the nicest man I had met (not the sharpest tool). Would go out of his way for everyone ( Is the word altruistic I'm looking for?). And is after a few years a much loved fixture in the neighborhood. 

He was always judged. There were always rumors or lies. And people would judge him from other people's opinions.
And until people actually took the time to really get to know him, they would just believe the lies.
This was in a wealthy area as well. People are bloody idiots

Anyway the moral of the story is: I'm also an assh0le to people in real life.


----------



## sptrawler (26 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Kavanagh is irrelevant to us, he's an American, let them deal with it.



Here you go, back on the same page, who really gives a hoot?
We have enough problems of our own to sort out, you just have to watch Judge Judy(the wife's favourite show), to work out American's have more scams going than Nigeria.
Why anyone would spend time listening to U.S generated gossip, shows that they have way too much time on their hands, maybe they should get a job at Bunnings and have real people to gossip with.


----------



## Darc Knight (26 September 2018)

That story of Mo's is bad. There is no "look" of a Pedo. Look at the convicted sexual predators on the News.

Had to google who that  Deborah Copaken of Bas's post is. Nothing to do with Brett Kavangh. Kudos to Bas for shining a light on something which may become an injustice if swept under the rug, BUT the last thing our Society or the Internet needs right now is another Lisa Wilkinson.


----------



## sptrawler (26 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> That story of Mo's is bad. There is no "look" of a Pedo. Look at the convicted sexual predators on the News.
> .




Well lucky Kazakhstan hasn't jumped on the U.S bandwagon, or it would cost the Government a fortune.lol

https://au.news.yahoo.com/kazakhstan-orders-2000-paedophiles-chemically-castrated-035307689.html

But it does give food for thought, even if your innocent, you would be $hitting bricks.
I hope the women that are making the claims, are realising the severity of the accusation, it will tarnish the person whether true or false.
The situation is getting to point, where false claims, need to incur a penalty.IMO


----------



## SirRumpole (26 September 2018)

sptrawler said:


> The situation is getting to point, where false claims, need to incur a penalty.IMO




If false claims are made in court that would be perjury.


----------



## sptrawler (26 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> If false claims are made in court that would be perjury.



How many of the #me too, accusations are going to court? Yet the recipient of a mention, cops a whole lot of misery, both financial and social.


----------



## moXJO (26 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> That story of Mo's is bad. There is no "look" of a Pedo.
> .



It blew out on social media real quick as well. People  (concerned housewives) were ready to string him up. He did have a look about him though,  poor guy. The fact was he was just lonely and socially outcast, over the way he looked. 

Funnily enough the people I mentioned would have "stop racism",  "accept people for who they are" memes up on their fb. I'm not sure if we as a nation are that self absorbed and shallow. That we can only preach about and not actually do.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 September 2018)

sptrawler said:


> How many of the #me too, accusations are going to court? Yet the recipient of a mention, cops a whole lot of misery, both financial and social.




There are defamation laws as well as shown by the Geoffery Rush case, but these may be different in the US.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 September 2018)

I wonder how many female pedos there are out there.

A few female teachers have been jailed for having it off with under age students, both male and female, so maybe there is an underlying problem with them too.


----------



## moXJO (26 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> There are defamation laws as well as shown by the Geoffery Rush case, but these may be different in the US.



They are for the rich. Most lawyers will tell you its a money pit.
My cousin sued the daily tele and won. Lawyers took the lot. Its a lot of risk and your name gets dragged through the mud.


----------



## sptrawler (26 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder how many female pedos there are out there.
> 
> A few female teachers have been jailed for having it off with under age students, both male and female, so maybe there is an underlying problem with them too.



I wonder how many young males, would report it.


----------



## sptrawler (26 September 2018)

moXJO said:


> They are for the rich. Most lawyers will tell you its a money pit.
> My cousin sued the daily tele and won. Lawyers took the lot. Its a lot of risk and your name gets dragged through the mud.



In Aus it isn't a money pit, unless you have money. Otherwise it is legal aid.


----------



## moXJO (26 September 2018)

sptrawler said:


> In Aus it isn't a money pit, unless you have money. Otherwise it is legal aid.



My cousin wasn't exactly well off but she couldn't get legal aid.


----------



## sptrawler (26 September 2018)

moXJO said:


> My cousin wasn't exactly well off but she couldn't get legal aid.



Yes, but the only ones who pursue litigation are those who can afford it, or those who aren't paying for it.
The plebs in the middle get creamed, as usual, but that's o.k that's normal in Aus. lol
The rich win and Joe average pays.
The poor win and Joe average pays.
If like your cousin, the lawyer pays, they take the money.


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

This  womans testimony about the behaviour of  Brett  Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and other boys at house parties is far more damning than either of the previous people.

*Third woman accuses US Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct*

...   In her statement, Ms Swetnick said she attended more than 10 house parties in the Washington area from 1981 to 1983 where Mr Kavanaugh was present. She described gang rapes that she said occurred in which boys would line up to rape incapacitated girls.

"In approximately 1982, I became the victim of one of these 'gang' or 'train' rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present," she said, mentioning the name of a close friend of Mr Kavanaugh. She did not identify her attackers.

"During the incident, I was incapacitated without my consent and unable to fight off the boys raping me. I believe I was drugged using Quaaludes (a sedative) or something similar placed in what I was drinking," she said.

Ms Swetnick said Mr Kavanaugh was present but did not accuse him of taking part.

She also said she witnessed efforts by Mr Kavanaugh and others "to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang-raped' in a side room or a bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys," *adding that she remembers boys including Mr Kavanaugh getting in lines to take part in these rapes.*
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-...brett-kavanaugh-of-sexual-misconduct/10309314


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder how many female pedos there are out there.
> 
> A few female teachers have been jailed for having it off with under age students, both male and female, so maybe there is an underlying problem with them too.




Well form my point of view I was very thankful for the young female teachers at my high school for including me in their weekend parties.


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2018)

basilio said:


> This  womans testimony about the behaviour of  Brett  Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and other boys at house parties is far more damning than either of the previous people.
> 
> *Third woman accuses US Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct*
> 
> ...




She went to 10 house parties knowing. on balance of probabilities, she would be mickey finned by gang bangers? Come on, tell another one!


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

To clarify some timelines on the ages of the Kavanaugh,  Ms Swetnick and Ms Ford.

Julie Swetnick says the drunken house parties and gang rapes happened between 1981-83.  She would have been 19-21 years of age then. She is 55 years old now

Brett Kavanaugh would have been 17-19 years old

Ms Ford is 4 years younger.  She would have been 15-17 years old.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> Well form my point of view I was very thankful for the young female teachers at my high school for including me in their weekend parties.




Some would be, others not.

https://www.news.com.au/national/ns...t/news-story/661c4dddda930410279250756583f221


----------



## Darc Knight (27 September 2018)

I think the next thread Bas starts should to be defending Men's rights. We like equality.


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> That story of Mo's is bad. There is no "look" of a Pedo. Look at the convicted sexual predators on the News.
> 
> Had to google who that  Deborah Copaken of Bas's post is. Nothing to do with Brett Kavangh. Kudos to Bas for shining a light on something which may become an injustice if swept under the rug, BUT the last thing our Society or the Internet needs right now is another Lisa Wilkinson.




If you go back to the original post  and the article you will see that Deborah  lived in the same neighbourhood and time as Brett Kavanaugh.  She discussed the culture of house parties, heavy drinking and abuse that happened as a young student.

She did take the story in another direction when she said that she had been raped by a drunken guy the night before her graduation. She went through the process of why she decided not to make a report and then attempted to "forget" what happened.

The "forgetting" proved very, very difficult.  The final connection to the current situation was that Christine Fords accusation prompted her to write to the guy who raped her and spell out the effects that night have had on her.

Her email, his response and how she felt afterwards are very moving. Well worth a read.

By the way Deboroh has assured the guy she will never reveal his name and has made every attempt to remove any identification.


----------



## Tink (27 September 2018)

I have mentioned before, that I am FOR Brett Kavanaugh.

---


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Some would be, others not.
> 
> https://www.news.com.au/national/ns...t/news-story/661c4dddda930410279250756583f221




Is there such as a 17 yearold male victim? How times have changed; back in the day a father would have been proud of his son.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2018)

basilio said:


> She discussed the culture of house parties, heavy drinking and abuse that happened as a young student.




"She" was part of the culture though wasn't she ?

If she and others knew what was going on and still went to those parties, then how much responsibility should they take ?

It's not as if this person was accosted in the street by strangers.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> Is there such as a 17 yearold male victim? How times have changed; back in the day a father would have been proud of his son.




If that sort of thing is an "education" for a young male, why not for a young female as well ?


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> "She" was part of the culture though wasn't she ?
> 
> If she and others knew what was going on and still went to those parties, then how much responsibility should they take ?
> 
> It's not as if this person was accosted in the street by strangers.




Did you read any of the background stories I posted previously? The only way a girl could *not* be part of this group  would be to reject it entirely. Does that seem reasonable?
And by the way Rumpy the overwhelmingly majority of sexual assaults are committed by people known to victim.
It's true a lot of really nasty, dumb xhit happens in teenage years. The issues here  are:

1) If Brett Kavanaugh was part of such behaviour how does this impact on his nomination as Supreme Court judge?
2) If he was part of such behaviour but chooses to lie about it now how does that impact on his nomination for Supreme Court judge ?
3) If there is credible evidence that he was part of systemic drug and rape group in college (a far more serious allegation) should he be charged and tried ?


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

The Washington Post has a thread that  is unfolding the story.  Very interesting to see the sympathy Donald Trumpo has for Brett Kavanaugh because he too has been the victim of so many false allegations.. I think it's 20 to date so far ?

*Kavanaugh nomination: Judge says he is victim of ‘character assassination’ as third woman comes forward*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b1e46bb3bc7_story.html?utm_term=.ca69a9a82b40


----------



## SirRumpole (27 September 2018)

basilio said:


> Did you read any of the background stories I posted previously? The only way a girl could *not* be part of this group would be to reject it entirely. Does that seem reasonable?




It does not seem unreasonable to me that a student who wanted to get ahead with their studies would shut out external influences that interfered with that.


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> I think the next thread Bas starts should to be defending Men's rights. We like equality.




That would be rather hard considering she is one those hosts that have been used to culture the pandemic ...... the metaphors to The Day of the Triffids are uncanny:

Bill Mason is the few men who are under attack
Josella Playton are the females who are press ganged into the feminist cause
and we all know who the Triffids are


----------



## moXJO (27 September 2018)

Hey bas 
Look up mark judges girlfriend... rasor or something. You will drool over the confirmation.


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It does not seem unreasonable to me that a student who wanted to get ahead with their studies would shut out external influences that interfered with that.




Well clearly the students did get ahead with their studies. Their results demonstrate that.  But they were still part of the overall class group.

Everyone, but particularly teenagers, want to be part of a social group. The dramas, traumas ect ? Ask em. Remember your past. Read up a bit.

Deborah Copekan made a point of saying that most of the Georgetown Prep boys were great kids. But she also said there were some nasty pieces of work. Do we tar all of them with the same brush?


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

moXJO said:


> Hey bas
> Look up mark judges girlfriend... rasor or something. You will drool over the confirmation.



So ? The real person to talk to  is Mark Judge.

I will be very surprised if he doesn't get a supoena at some stage whether he wants to speak or not.
And how do the  memories of Mark Judges girlfriend sit with you in this situation?


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

The full sworn statement of Julie Swetnick is on line. Spiking punch with spirits and drugs, targeting vulnerable and isolated girls, public sexual aggression. Other witnesses to these events.

I think the Judge needs a lawyer.

*Read the full sworn statement from Julie Swetnick, the third woman to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct*

Accuser Julie Swetnick, in a sworn declaration tweeted out by her lawyer Michael Avenatti, alleges that Kavanaugh and others while in high school spiked the drinks of girls at parties to make it easier for them to be gang raped.
"I witnessed Brett Kavanaugh consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women during the early 1980s," Swetnick says in her statement, which she signed under penalty of perjury.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/rea...m-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick.html
https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/...itorialfiles/2018/09/26/swetnickstatement.pdf


----------



## bellenuit (27 September 2018)

Kavanaugh may have played his card's wrong on the Fox interview.

*Brett Kavanaugh is hard to believe*

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/25/sup...e.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

More detail on Julie Swetnick.

One significiant point. Ms Swetnick has multiple security clearances through her range of government jobs. If she has lied on oath with these allegations she has destroyed her career.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/julie-swetnick/


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2018)

basilio said:


> More detail on Julie Swetnick.
> 
> One significiant point. Ms Swetnick has multiple security clearances through her range of government jobs. If she has lied on oath with these allegations she has destroyed her career.
> https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/julie-swetnick/




She probably has achieved that outcome already.


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> She probably has achieved that outcome already.



That would be a shame. From all reports she seems a very capable person.

Also very courageous. And not a Democrat. Kavanaugh is in trouble.


----------



## wayneL (27 September 2018)




----------



## wayneL (27 September 2018)




----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

wayneL said:


>





About the same as any other drivel Lori Hendry can dream up.


----------



## wayneL (27 September 2018)

Loving the irony bas


----------



## wayneL (27 September 2018)




----------



## luutzu (27 September 2018)

@Darc Knight

Torture. Domestic spying.




Friends of big business.


----------



## Darc Knight (27 September 2018)

More:

"All of these approaches add up to one general conclusion: If confirmed, Kavanaugh is likely to be a very conservative justice in the mold of Alito or Neil Gorsuch. "

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-conservative-is-brett-kavanaugh/


----------



## wayneL (27 September 2018)




----------



## wayneL (27 September 2018)




----------



## luutzu (27 September 2018)

wayneL said:


>





A couple of brave Spartacus aren't they.

They should really see what the Romans did to all the Spartacuses. 

Only difference is that this time, history won't look upon them as freedom fighters, just a couple of paid tools.


----------



## wayneL (27 September 2018)

Bahahaha Grasshopper! 

...and another  big dollop of irony.


----------



## Darc Knight (27 September 2018)

"In response, an aide to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee reportedly unloaded on Senate Republicans: "Republicans are flailing," the aide said, according to NBC News. "They are desperately trying to muddy the waters. ... Twelve hours before the hearing they suggest two anonymous men claimed to have assaulted her. Democrats were never informed of these assertions in interviews, in violation of Senate rules."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...may-have-mistaken-them-for-kavanaugh.amp.html


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2018)

wayneL said:


> Bahahaha Grasshopper!
> 
> ...and another  big dollop of irony.




So two guys are now claiming they rape girls... the one that got away was Dr. Ford? Maybe, they can't be sure... because they did it to so many girls? 

So if we read up on Kavanaugh's diary, we can see where he was and what he was doing that day. 

anyway... aren't there a bunch of other azzholes the GOP can pick who will rule the same way, just happen to not be a sexual predator?


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

Well how special is that !  Suddenly it appears a couple of guys* front up *to say they were the ones who assaulted Christine Ford in 1982. How brilliantly noble and fortutitous.  All we need now is a couple more volunteers to take the rap to make sure  there are sufficient options.  I really hope they can offer some proof they were at the party - like anyone else who remembers  them ?

Perhaps they could also tell us about the punch spiking and sex train assaults that Julie Spectwick has described.

That is certainly amazing. Looks as if they will have to supoena Mark Judge and get to the bottom of this.
Bring on the popcorn.


----------



## Darc Knight (27 September 2018)

If two people come forward confessing to raping young girls, doesn't that warrant Police involvement.
Two more Trump campaign members done for lying under oath.


----------



## IFocus (27 September 2018)

No moral high ground here for the Repubs they won't call all witnesses or investigate, all carefully controlled such is the corruption and fraud (sadly including the religious right)in the US political appointments.

Kavanaugh hung out with a group who were involved in heavy binge drinking and gang rape even Clinton would blush at that.


----------



## Darc Knight (27 September 2018)

Wayne and Tisme, you two haven't made any Calls to the U.S. over the last few days have you?
I know Mo wouldn't do something like that!


----------



## bellenuit (27 September 2018)

#4


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

Good analysis Bellenuit. 

(This is a great  serial isn't it.  Surely can't be real could it ? )


----------



## moXJO (27 September 2018)

basilio said:


> So ? The real person to talk to  is Mark Judge.
> 
> I will be very surprised if he doesn't get a supoena at some stage whether he wants to speak or not.
> And how do the  memories of Mark Judges girlfriend sit with you in this situation?



Personal opinion is that this is a last minute smear job  on Kavanaugh by the dems. Not the first, second, or third time democrats have flat out lied about a situation either. 
The "not Kavanaugh" protesters are some of the biggest lying shtbags,  trying to push their goal home. Nothing is beyond them.

But like I said before- not much evidence. 

All the witnesses have denied. Ford has changed details from her polygraph and there seems to be a few lies. Wheres her family in this? 
Surely a family member would have had some clue.

I think they are trying  to link Kavanaugh to mark judges behavior. I have a feeling judge was knee deep in the allegations.

But like I said you need credible evidence to really decide. Not loons coming out of the woodwork.


----------



## moXJO (27 September 2018)

Julie Swetnick had a restraining order filed against her by her ex boyfriend.  I'm sure more stuff will come out.
"Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,”. "I know a lot about her. ... She’s not credible at all. Not at all."

None of their "witnesses" seem to back any of them.

Fords apparent friend at the time.  Who she placed at the party with her and Kavanaugh said it didn't happen and she never met Kavanaugh in her life.


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)




----------



## moXJO (27 September 2018)

The "I'm on a boat"Jeff Catalan sexual assault accusation was recanted after the sht bag thought twice about it. 
But goes to show that the crazies are coming forward with bs accounts.


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

*Christine Blasey Ford’s Opening Statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee*
On Thursday, the woman accusing the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her while the two were in high school will testify before a panel of lawmakers.

_On Thursday, the California professor Christine Blasey Ford will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the sexual-assault allegations she’s leveled against the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Ford’s claim, that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party while the two were in high school, became public on September 16, though she’d sent a confidential letter detailing the alleged incident to Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein in July. Kavanaugh has denied the accusations._

_Below, the full text of Ford’s prepared written testimony. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...atement-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court/571366/_


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

*Brett Kavanaugh’s Prepared Remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee*
The Supreme Court nominee will testify Thursday about the sexual-assault allegations against him, which he “categorically and unequivocally” denies.

Madeleine CarlisleOlivia Paschal  Sep 26, 2018





Jacquelyn Martin / AP

_On the eve of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the sexual-assault allegations against the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the panel released his opening remarks. Kavanaugh will say that he “categorically and unequivocally” denies the accusations made by Christine Blasey Ford, a California professor. Ford, who claims Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while the two were in high school, will also testify on Thursday. _

_Below is Kavanaugh’s prepared written testimony, as submitted to the committee. _


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

Background stories on Christine Blasey Ford.
*Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford moved 3,000 miles to reinvent her life. It wasn’t far enough.*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...8719177250f_story.html?utm_term=.837e7fcca0e8

*Christine Blasey Ford’s family has been nearly silent amid outpouring of support*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...16336a26305_story.html?utm_term=.61515bb059de


----------



## basilio (27 September 2018)

*Who is Julie Swetnick, the third Kavanaugh accuser?*


 Michael E. Miller ,
 Steve Hendrix ,
 Jessica Contrera and
 Ian Shapira
September 26 at 9:54 PM
Julie Swetnick, who Wednesday became the third woman to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, is an experienced Web developer in the Washington area who has held multiple security clearances for her work on government-related networks.

The child of two government bureaucrats — her father worked on the lunar orbiter for NASA and her mother was a geologist at the Atomic Energy Commission — has spent most of her life around Washington. Now 55, she grew up in Maryland and graduated in 1980 from Gaithersburg High School, located in a far less affluent section of the same county where Kavanaugh lived and attended an exclusive prep school.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...b1e46bb3bc7_story.html?utm_term=.a7d4db1bccf0


----------



## moXJO (27 September 2018)

basilio said:


> *Who is Julie Swetnick, the third Kavanaugh accuser?*
> 
> 
> Michael E. Miller ,
> ...




*Ex-boyfriend filed restraining order against third Kavanaugh accuser*

By MARC CAPUTO and NATASHA KORECKI


09/26/2018 08:05 PM EDT

Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and a friend of attending house parties where women — including herself — were sexually assaulted, had a restraining order filed against her years later in Miami by her former boyfriend.

A Miami-Dade County court docket shows a petition for injunction against Swetnick was filed March 1, 2001, by her former boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, who told POLITICO Wednesday the two had dated for four years before they broke up.



Thirteen days later, the case was dismissed, not long after an affidavit of non-ability to advance fees was filed.

According to Vinneccy, Swetnick threatened him after they broke up and even after he got married to his current wife and had a child.

“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. "I know a lot about her.”

"She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”


Swetnick was identified on Wednesday by Avenatti, who produced a sworn statement asserting that she met Kavanaugh in the 1980-1981 time period and subsequently attended more than 10 house parties where she said Kavanaugh and a close friend of his, Mark Judge, attended.

Swetnick does not accuse Kavanaugh himself of sexually assaulting her in the sworn statement. But she asserts Kavanaugh was present when she was the victim of a “gang rape” by multiple boys at one party.

Vinneccy made clear that he did not believe her story.

“I have a lot of facts, evidence, that what she’s saying is not true at all,” he said. “I would rather speak to my attorney first before saying more."

Avenatti said called the reporting “outrageous” and accused the press of “digging into the past” of a woman who stepped forward and is willing to testify under oath.

“I am disgusted by the fact that the press is attacking a sexual assault victim,” Avenatti said.

When asked if the allegation of a restraining order were true, Avenatti said: “I don’t know one way or another,” adding he would research it further.

Avenatti previously said he had vetted the client and in a sworn statement, she said she still held government clearances.


----------



## moXJO (27 September 2018)

And he is a registered democrat


----------



## Tisme (28 September 2018)

basilio said:


> Well how special is that !  Suddenly it appears a couple of guys* front up *to say they were the ones who assaulted Christine Ford in 1982. How brilliantly noble and fortutitous.  All we need now is a couple more volunteers to take the rap to make sure  there are sufficient options.  I really hope they can offer some proof they were at the party - like anyone else who remembers  them ?
> 
> Perhaps they could also tell us about the punch spiking and sex train assaults that Julie Spectwick has described.
> 
> ...




You suggesting people might actually tell lies.  or is that only the domain of males?


----------



## Tisme (28 September 2018)

Anyone who has had children would recognise crocodile tears and the whimpy voice to draw sympathy. Fortunately most parents stop that kind of manipulative nonsense ..... where were the adults with the fly swatter when Ford was croaking her voice like a guilty child would.


----------



## Darc Knight (28 September 2018)

I wasn't convinced by Brett Kav. He's spent his entire life learning how to BS convincingly under oath. Which leads me to believe that if he has the hide to lie with that much conviction he must be a special kind of sleaze.

4 Republicans and 3 Democrats on the Committee, I guess he'll get through.


----------



## moXJO (28 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> I wasn't convinced by Brett Kav. He's spent his entire life learning how to BS convincingly under oath. Which leads me to believe that if he has the hide to lie with that much conviction he must be a special kind of sleaze.
> 
> 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats on the Committee, I guess he'll get through.



Kav was ready day one of the accusation. Ford suddenly had a fear of flying. In reality her lawyers and dems wanted to delay as long as possible. If she testified monday or last week an fbi investigation would be over by now. 

She had zero corroboration from witnesses that could back the story.

And now dems (if kav is sunk) will delay till 2020 a gop pick. 

Hit job.


----------



## McLovin (28 September 2018)

Politicise the judiciary then complain that its politicised. Muppets.


----------



## moXJO (28 September 2018)

McLovin said:


> Politicise the judiciary then complain that its politicised. Muppets.



I would have thought the Clarence Thomas saga was already evidence of that.


----------



## McLovin (28 September 2018)

moXJO said:


> I would have thought the Clarence Thomas saga was already evidence of that.




A seven seat, unelected body interprets an ancient, poorly written document composed by a handful of rural tax-evaders, and then delivers binding opinions that dictate the supposed morality of the country. That's why its politicised.


----------



## Darc Knight (28 September 2018)

If you listen to Brett Kav 's testimony it's all about the Democrats, the Left etc are scum, are Crooks and liars. This is not an impartial person who should be aiming to sit on the Supreme Court Bench and make judgements of Law between the Republicans and Democrats.
Sounds like he's running for office as a Republican and slinging mud at the opposition the Democrats.


----------



## luutzu (28 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> If you listen to Brett Kav 's testimony it's all about the Democrats, the Left etc are scum, are Crooks and liars. This is not an impartial person who should be aiming to sit on the Supreme Court Bench and make judgements of Law between the Republicans and Democrats.
> Sounds like he's running for office as a Republican and slinging mud at the opposition the Democrats.




Yea but that's him with a suit on. 

Once the sacred robe is worn and he's in the Supreme Court, he will rule for every single American - all 1% of them. 

He will uphold the sacred law written by a bunch of White landed slave owning gentry who wishes for nothing but the freedom and liberty of all free men.


----------



## basilio (28 September 2018)

They really were two totally contrasting testomonies weren't they ?

Christine  was anxious to understand every question. You could see her searching her memory. Brett  hardly gave a straight answer to any question. What kind of flippant answer to an extremely relevant inquiry about his drinking is 'I like beer, how about you'?

What struck me more than his belligerence was when Kavanagh was getting all emotional about things like having kept diaries while Ford was coherently and without tears recounting her ordeal. If anyone was bunging on the false tears it was Brett.

Anyway this is just Round 1.  The critical interviews will be with Julie Swetnick. She is a different sort of fish here.
Christine came from an upper class conservative Republician family. It was why she went to the school she did and mixed in the same circles. Julie went to a local high school. She doesn't  seem to share that political background. Her testimony will be confronting in a far more sinister way  than Christines because she has alleged Brett was complict in getting girls drunk and faciliating gang rapes. And she says there are others who will back her up. 

The most significant comment on the whole exercise came from Donald Trump.  He was rapt that Brett went full ballastic on the accusations. That was his boy.. What else do we need to know ?





 Donald J. Trump *✔*  @realDonaldTrump 

 
Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him. His testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting. Democrats’ search and destroy strategy is disgraceful and this process has been a total sham and effort to delay, obstruct, and resist. The Senate must vote!


----------



## basilio (28 September 2018)

*Fallout from Dr Christine Blasey Fords testimony.
*

*“This brings back so much pain”: why so many women saw themselves in Christine Blasey Ford’s story of sexual assault*
*As she told her story, women across the country responded with their own stories.*

...Even Fox News’s Chris Wallace was stirred by Ford’s testimony, sharing a personal story about how two of his daughters came forward amid the debate over the Kavanaugh allegations to tell him about things that happened to them during their high school years.

“I had never heard before about things that happened to them in high school — and hadn’t told their parents,” Wallace said on the air Thursday morning. “I don’t know if they told their friends. Certainly they never reported it to the police.” 
Ford’s testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee was a remarkable moment in history. But her story was not unique — it is one that millions of women have experienced at some point in their lives.
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/27/17910...h-sexual-assault-allegations-senate-testimony


----------



## basilio (28 September 2018)

*5 key questions the Ford-Kavanaugh hearings left unanswered*
*The biggest things we don’t know call Brett Kavanaugh’s credibility into serious question.*
By Zack Beauchamp@zackbeauchampzack@vox.com   Sep 27, 2018, 7:31pm EDT
     Share 





	

		
			
		

		
	
  Andrew Harnik/Pool/Getty Images
By the end of an emotionally brutal day of Senate hearings on Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, there were still a lot of questions left outstanding — many of which are vital to understanding what really happened in in 1982. It served to highlight just how nakedly the Republicans running the committee had set up the hearing to grandstand, not to get at the truth of the matter.

There were a number of holes in Kavanaugh’s testimony: places where he dodged simple yes-or-no questions, or gave answers that seemed inconsistent with facts in the public record or simple common sense. These include critical issues, like whether he ever drank so much that he became aggressive and/or blacked out — ones that could seriously damage his credibility as a witness.

Ford’s testimony was much more straightforward. There were still some issues, like why her friend Leland Ingham Keyser couldn’t remember the party, but they were much less central and varied than the ones that arose from Kavanaugh’s.

What follows is a guide to where there’s still unclarity, and why these issues are so important. Put together, the gravity of what’s still not known suggests that — at the very least — it’s hard to justify giving Kavanaugh a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court without getting some more answers.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...naugh-christine-ford-senate-yearbook-calendar


----------



## luutzu (28 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> Anyone who has had children would recognise crocodile tears and the whimpy voice to draw sympathy. Fortunately most parents stop that kind of manipulative nonsense ..... where were the adults with the fly swatter when Ford was croaking her voice like a guilty child would.





I take it you never have much experience recalling an attempted rape when you were 15. Doing it in front of cameras, wrinkled old men, and a nice lady lawyer representing them. 

Why can't they all be like Brett. Confident, manly, flippant, likes beer and alcohol so much he blacks out a fair few time... what? doesn't everybody? 

but of course not too manly as he kept a diary and goes teary... praying for Dr. Ford


----------



## Darc Knight (28 September 2018)

Dear Bas, will the next thread you start be one defending Men's Rights? We like equality. Please restore my faith in you. Thank you


----------



## basilio (28 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Dear Bas, will the next thread you start be one defending Men's Rights? We like equality. Please restore my faith in you. Thank you




Thanks  for the thought Darc.  However I believe you will find other posters on ASF with far more righteousness and determination to defend the rights of men.

But back to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh as Supreme Court judge for life.
It seems that the  Senate Committee is not going to wait to hear any further allegations (particularly ones that could prove awkward)  and wants to vote for Brett Kavanaugh tomorrow. Great due diligence there.

 20:27 
*Senate committee to vote Friday morning*

Republican senators have now said the Senate judiciary committee plans to vote Friday morning on Kavanaugh’s nomination, the AP reports:

John Cornyn of Texas, the second ranking-Republican, had said Thursday that the GOP conference would meet and “see where we are”. After meeting, Republican senator Lindsey Graham said, “There will be a vote tomorrow morning.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ve-news-updates-hearing-sexual-assault-claims


----------



## luutzu (28 September 2018)

basilio said:


> Thanks  for the thought Darc.  However I believe you will find other posters on ASF with far more righteousness and determination to defend the rights of men.
> 
> But back to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh as Supreme Court judge for life.
> It seems that the  Senate Committee is not going to wait to hear any further allegations (particularly ones that could prove awkward)  and wants to vote for Brett Kavanaugh tomorrow. Great due diligence there.
> ...




American democracy is fast becoming a farce. 

There's the Russian, and now the Chinese, rigging its elections. There's the complete disdain for what the majority of the people want or care about; there's the appointed "Justices" who are anything but fair and just... all they need now is a clownish buffoon who like gold plated stuff.


----------



## basilio (28 September 2018)

*Mens Rights*
The Senate hearing on the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh gives the picture of (Republicians) Mens Rights

*Whom do we believe, and when*
The day played out like a set piece. In the morning, Ford showed how high the bar was to even have a chance of being believed. Her story is specific, credible, serious. She’s told it to multiple people over the years. She tried to tell it to Congress before Kavanaugh was nominated. She places Kavanaugh in the town he lived, at the house of a person he knew, in a room with one of his best friends. She tried her best to be polite to the senators, to avoid offense, to show gratitude to the committee for listening to her. She took a polygraph, begged for an FBI investigation. She says she’s 100 percent sure it was Kavanaugh who attacked her.

 In the afternoon, Kavanaugh simply denied all charges. He denied ever being blackout drunk. He denied ever forgetting anything of importance. He denied the possibility he was wrong, that it might be useful for his alleged accomplice Mark Judge to testify or for the FBI to investigate. He said Ford’s memory had failed her but was incredulous at the idea that his recall could deliver a similar error.

And he fought back. He slammed his accusers; he made clear his pain, his rage. If Ford was grateful for the opportunity to be heard, Kavanaugh was incredulous that she was being given that opportunity, that it was taking this long, that it could possibly take longer.

Asked why the committee couldn’t take another week to investigate the claims more thoroughly, he shot back, “Every day has been a lifetime.” His suffering was immense, unfair, unforgivable. “I’m never going to get my reputation back,” he said. “My life is totally and permanently altered.”

The suffering of his accusers, women who say they’ve been living with the trauma of what he did for decades? They were mistaken, and their claims could be, should be, for the good of the county _had to be,_ dismissed. “This grotesque character assassination will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country,” he said.

*The feminist philosopher Kate Manne coined the term “himpathy” to describe the “tendency to dismiss the female perspective altogether, to empathize with the powerful man over his less powerful alleged female victim.” What Kavanaugh did today was activate the Republican Party’s powerful sense of himpathy: His suffering was the question, and Ford’s suffering, to say nothing of any further search for the truth, slipped soundlessly beneath the water. *

We ended the day in much the same place we started: his word against hers. But even as everyone agreed Ford’s word was credible, it didn’t matter. There was still Kavanaugh’s word. And it appeared, for Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, that that was enough. She was 100 percent sure and he was 100 percent sure, but it was his 100 percent sure that mattered.

On this, Trump was right. What Kavanaugh had needed to do was go on the offensive. He needed to remind the all-male Republican panel that he was the victim here, that any of them could be victims, that moving his nomination forward would be a show of strength, a message sent to the Democrats and their allies, a statement that these tactics end here and they end now. This is how you fight #MeToo: by focusing on the pain it’s causing men, by centering their suffering.

*All of this was, perhaps, predictable.* On Wednesday, a new NPR/Marist poll found that while large majorities of Democrats and independents believed Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination should be rejected if Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations are true*, a majority of Republicans believed Kavanaugh should be confirmed even if Ford’s allegations are true. If Thursday’s hearing didn’t ultimately seem to be about the truth at all, well, perhaps that’s why: The truth was never really what Senate Republicans were after. *

By the end of the day, Trump was thrilled. “Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him,” he tweeted shortly after the hearing ended. “The Senate must vote!”

https://www.vox.com/explainers/2018...supreme-court-senate-sexual-assault-testimony


----------



## basilio (28 September 2018)

*Kavanaugh nomination in a nutshell*
Imagine you’re on the committee to hire the next CEO of a Fortune 500 company. You’ve got a stack of impressive resumes, but one is a standout.

Then you hear this:

- A woman says your top pick tried to sexually assault her, pinning her down on a bed at a party when they were in high school, a story she told a therapist years ago.
-A second woman says he exposed himself to her as a student at Yale. Classmates gossiped about it for decades.
-A third woman says your applicant was a bystander when she was, in her words, “gang raped” at a high school party. She says that she saw him once in a line of boys preparing to gang rape another student.
-She also said that he and his friends spiked drinks with drugs and alcohol to make women unable fight off unwanted sexual advances.
-In response to all of this, your top pick presents himself as a virgin choirboy. Half a dozen of his old friends gasp, telling the Washington Post that, in fact, he was an aggressive “sloppy drunk” for years.

Do you hire him, anyway?
*
*


----------



## wayneL (28 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Wayne and Tisme, you two haven't made any Calls to the U.S. over the last few days have you?
> I know Mo wouldn't do something like that!



No,  but here's what *really concerns me - One of the basic tenets of our system is the principle of the assumption of innocence unless proven guilty. 

I don't know whether Kav did these these things,  and neither do y'all. But it seems that if one's political affiliations are of the left,  you are happy to assume his guilt. (with the exception of Lindsey Stewart...  Bravo,  that man) 

That is wrong,  disgusting, and profoundly ####ing stupid. Yes,  you clowns truly disgust me and you have no idea if the can of worms you have opened.

If he is guilty,  fine,  let those cards fall where they will.  If he is proved innocent,  then you deserve the shame...  that you probably don't have the sociological capacity of feeling.


----------



## explod (28 September 2018)

Goodness, she's reading her script, using a croaky voice to intimate mental impacts.  From my professional experience appears to be lying through her teeth.  I'm no right winger but can see the Clinton Illuminati all over this.

And when it happened they were kids and no real evidence that Kavanaugh was even there.

US absolutely corrupt and stuffed.  Just party and save somer silver coins.


----------



## Darc Knight (28 September 2018)

explod said:


> Goodness, she's reading her script, using a croaky voice to intimate mental impacts.  From my professional experience appears to be lying through her teeth.  I'm no right winger but can see the Clinton Illuminati all over this.
> 
> And when it happened they were kids and no real evidence that Kavanaugh was even there.
> 
> US absolutely corrupt and stuffed.  Just party and save somer silver coins.




You're an ex Police Officer are you? I'm assuming from your name.


----------



## luutzu (28 September 2018)

basilio said:


> *Kavanaugh nomination in a nutshell*
> Imagine you’re on the committee to hire the next CEO of a Fortune 500 company. You’ve got a stack of impressive resumes, but one is a standout.
> 
> Then you hear this:
> ...




I guess it depends on what you want in your Justice.


----------



## luutzu (28 September 2018)

wayneL said:


> No,  but here's what *really concerns me - One of the basic tenets of our system is the principle of the assumption of innocence unless proven guilty.
> 
> I don't know whether Kav did these these things,  and neither do y'all. But it seems that if one's political affiliations are of the left,  you are happy to assume his guilt. (with the exception of Lindsey Stewart...  Bravo,  that man)
> 
> ...




Did they bothered to do an investigation? No.

She offered names, witnesses, crime scenes. She asks for an FBI investigation.

The FBI can't be trusted? Too political? It's not important enough?


----------



## luutzu (28 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> You're an ex Police Officer are you? I'm assuming from your name.




How did you get that from his name?


----------



## Darc Knight (28 September 2018)

luutzu said:


> How did you get that from his name?




Ex Plod, plod being colloquial for Cop.


----------



## McLovin (28 September 2018)

explod said:


> Goodness, she's reading her script, using a croaky voice to intimate mental impacts.  From my professional experience appears to be lying through her teeth.  I'm no right winger but can see the Clinton Illuminati all over this.




Anyone who was involved with Starr is the enemy of the Dems. Kavanaugh authored the Starr report so the Dems went fishing to see what they'd find. It's not a courtroom so innocent until proven guilty blah blah doesn't mean anything. It's no different to the usual muck that gets hurled around in a US election campaign, so I don't know why there's so much handwringing about it. And yes, a SC nomination _is _an election campaign; the system has been so heavily politicised.

Both parties need to stop putting forward partisan candidates who are selected first and foremost because they are ideological brethren.


----------



## wayneL (28 September 2018)

luutzu said:


> I guess it depends on what you want in your Justice.



Due process, brah. It's how we do it in the West, Grasshopper. (unless your brownshirts manage to destroy that)


----------



## wayneL (28 September 2018)

luutzu said:


> Did they bothered to do an investigation? No.
> 
> She offered names, witnesses, crime scenes. She asks for an FBI investigation.
> 
> The FBI can't be trusted? Too political? It's not important enough?



You really haven't followed proceedings outside the egregious Vox,  Gaurdian et al,  have you?


----------



## luutzu (28 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Ex Plod, plod being colloquial for Cop.




Plod for cops? Not the other P? jk explod


----------



## wayneL (28 September 2018)

McLovin said:


> Anyone who was involved with Starr is the enemy of the Dems. Kavanaugh authored the Starr report so the Dems went fishing to see what they'd find. It's not a courtroom so innocent until proven guilty blah blah doesn't mean anything. It's no different to the usual muck that gets hurled around in a US election campaign, so I don't know why there's so much handwringing about it. And yes, a SC nomination _is _an election campaign; the system has been so heavily politicised.
> 
> Both parties need to stop putting forward partisan candidates who are selected first and foremost because they are ideological brethren.




Ain't gonna happen. Examine the testimony of both 2016 candidates and the attributes of their SC noms. 

On the face of it, the alternative election result would have been a bigger partisan (and unconstitutional) sh!tshow.

Whst the US should NOT have,  is a Marxist activist judiciary.


----------



## McLovin (28 September 2018)

wayneL said:


> Ain't gonna happen.




Oh well. Not my country, not my worry.


----------



## explod (28 September 2018)

Waaay off topic, but:-
"Mr. Plod is a fictional character in the Noddy children's series by Enid Blyton. He is a forthright police officer who never lets Toyland's crooks escape"...


----------



## moXJO (28 September 2018)

luutzu said:


> Did they bothered to do an investigation? No.
> 
> She offered names, witnesses, crime scenes. She asks for an FBI investigation.
> 
> The FBI can't be trusted? Too political? It's not important enough?



They investigated 6 times into his character. There was no crime scene because she "can't remember " all her witnesses said "no never there" or it didn't happen. I  like how all the muck starts becoming the truth.

There is no knockout punch. Its his word against hers. As of this morning she was up $380 thousand dollars. Theres a long line of stink on the dems after this.

Did it happen? 
Unless more evidence comes out, its  down to which side you back.


----------



## Knobby22 (28 September 2018)

I don't care but it's all a bit ridiculous.
This is a sign of where the world is going.


----------



## Buckfont (28 September 2018)

Also the fact that Sheila Jackson Lee (D) has been sprung 'sneaking' a fat envelope to Ford's attorney. Very dodgy and dumb to be so indiscreet. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Ford's a fake. Wait till Mark Dice does a clip on this. It will be my morning dose of hilarity.


----------



## wayneL (28 September 2018)




----------



## orr (28 September 2018)

basilio said:


> *Arfy's nomination in a nutshell*
> 
> 
> Then you hear this:
> ...




The only slightly altered lines above are an Semi-acurate para-phase of Arfy's character in Catch-22. A book written nearly 60 years ago. The behaviour of rich white entitled bully boot boy's is really really  slowly being checked. Kavanangh is a small eruption of a much larger festering infection.
Catch-22...Watch the film read the book....


----------



## luutzu (28 September 2018)

moXJO said:


> They investigated 6 times into his character. There was no crime scene because she "can't remember " all her witnesses said "no never there" or it didn't happen. I  like how all the muck starts becoming the truth.
> 
> There is no knockout punch. Its his word against hers. As of this morning she was up $380 thousand dollars. Theres a long line of stink on the dems after this.
> 
> ...




This is a new case. This would have made it the 7th. Or should it stop at 6?

But sure, next time someone accuse someone else of a crime, the judge should just ask whether the accused did it or not. Pinky promise and swear to God if the alleged crime is serious enough.


----------



## luutzu (28 September 2018)

McLovin said:


> Oh well. Not my country, not my worry.




Don't the English speaking world take each other's laws and precedents as guidelines and models... sometimes?

That and what's decided in the US affects the world.


----------



## luutzu (28 September 2018)

wayneL said:


> You really haven't followed proceedings outside the egregious Vox,  Gaurdian et al,  have you?




I don't watch Fox and Friends, no.


----------



## Darc Knight (28 September 2018)

wayneL said:


> Thatis wrong,  disgusting, and profoundly ####ing stupid. Yes,  you clowns truly disgust me and you have no idea if the can of worms you have opened.




Can I meet you half way and we'll just blame Bas and her anti peni views?

But in all seriousness, if someone came to me and said "that Wayne, he cuddles Sheep". Then a second independent person, a third, then a fourth. Then if Donald Trump came out and said "that Wayne, he doesn't cuddle Sheep", I'd  pretty  much take that as five pieces of evidence leading me to say "Wayne probably cuddles Sheep!"


----------



## luutzu (28 September 2018)

wayneL said:


> Due process, brah. It's how we do it in the West, Grasshopper. (unless your brownshirts manage to destroy that)




Every Judge under any regime you care to name got there after "due process". They also execute and hang people following their interpretation of the law too.


----------



## wayneL (28 September 2018)

luutzu said:


> I don't watch Fox and Friends, no.



Ahh,  so you only form opinions from your own echo chamber. 

Excellent,  grasshopper,  excellent


----------



## wayneL (28 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Can I meet you half way and we'll just blame Bas and her anti peni views?
> 
> But in all seriousness, if someone came to me and said "that Wayne, he cuddles Sheep". Then a second independent person, a third, then a fourth. Then if Donald Trump came out and said "that Wayne, he doesn't cuddle Sheep", I'd  pretty  much take that as five pieces of evidence leading me to say "Wayne probably cuddles Sheep!"




All my asshole kiwi mates, accuse me of cuddling sheep. Ironic,  because it is a known fact that all Kiwis do in fact,  cuddle sheep.


----------



## wayneL (28 September 2018)

luutzu said:


> Every Judge under any regime you care to name got there after "due process". They also execute and hang people following their interpretation of the law too.



Thank you. 

According to any fair interpretation of the law,  Kav seemingly has no case to answer.

The Marxists however, have seemingly left themself open to civil litigation. 

Really dumb game plan


----------



## luutzu (28 September 2018)

wayneL said:


> Thank you.
> 
> According to any fair interpretation of the law,  Kav seemingly has no case to answer.
> 
> ...




When a person is being accused of a crime such as rape, I'm pretty sure "due process" calls for a case to be filed, the investigators called in and start asking questions of everyone and everything.

Here, all that's been done is the few Senators' staffer called in the accused, ask them to swear to God if they attempted rape or not. 

No we didn't. 

Alright then. Case close. 


Call it prejudice if you want but I rather take the word of a psychology professor over a career lawyer who twist the law to allow torture. 

Maybe the lady made it all up since she claimed it happened. With school mates recalling she "disappear" socially, withdrawn and not herself. And oh, she made it up by seeking counselling and telling her psychiatrist about it.

But she's a liar because there's no "knock out punch"; her psychiatrist wrote "four boys" instead of the "two boys" as she claim. 

Well, she said this... he said that... and he got a diary to prove it. So who knows... let's move along and vote to appoint him a lifetime Justice.


----------



## McLovin (28 September 2018)

luutzu said:


> Don't the English speaking world take each other's laws and precedents as guidelines and models... sometimes?




Not really. The all share the common law system, but that's about as far as the similarities go. In any event, this isn't a court of law, it's a senate hearing. (a point which seems to be getting lost in all this discussion about due process and innocent until guilty).



luutzu said:


> That and what's decided in the US affects the world.




The US judiciary, and its appointment process, has little importance outside the US.


----------



## Knobby22 (28 September 2018)

McLovin said:


> . In any event, this isn't a court of law, it's a senate hearing. (a point which seems to be getting lost in all this discussion about due process and innocent until guilty).
> .



Exactly, and we know how the vote will go.


----------



## CanOz (28 September 2018)

Kav is not on trial, his job is.


----------



## basilio (28 September 2018)

*American Bar Association requests to delay Brett Kavanaugh vote until FBI investigates*

The American Bar Association late Thursday urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to delay the vote to confirm Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh pending a full FBI investigation, according to multiple reports.
 In a letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein, the organization requested the committee hold off on voting until allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and others can be fully vetted by the FBI.
 “We make this request because of the ABA’s respect for the rule of law and due process under law,” the letter read. “The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI.”

Ford, a California professor, accused the federal judge of sexually assaulting her more than three decades ago.
 *The organization said the decision behind an appointment for the Supreme Court is “simply too important to rush to a vote,” while proceeding without an additional investigation would not only impact the Senate’s reputation, but “negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court.”  *

“It must remain an institution that will reliably follow the law and not politics,” the letter stated.
 The Huffington Post posted a copy of the letter to Twitter. Fox News emailed and called the ABA and did not immediately receive comment.
 In August, the association rated Kavanaugh as a well-qualified candidate for the nation’s highest court -- their highest rating. It issued the recommendation before the allegations were made public.
 Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. cited the association’s comments during an intense moment during Thursday’s hearing that featured testimony from both Kavanaugh and Ford on the allegations.
*http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tt-kavanaugh-vote-until-fbi-investigates.html*


----------



## luutzu (28 September 2018)

McLovin said:


> Not really. The all share the common law system, but that's about as far as the similarities go. In any event, this isn't a court of law, it's a senate hearing. (a point which seems to be getting lost in all this discussion about due process and innocent until guilty).
> 
> The US judiciary, and its appointment process, has little importance outside the US.




Being a Supreme Court Judge he would rule on, say, US presidential (war) power... decide on US multinationals and the impact of their operations outside the US.

There are cases from victims of US corporations operating in Indonesia suing them under him... he told them to bugger off because this and that.


----------



## moXJO (28 September 2018)

McLovin said:


> Not really. The all share the common law system, but that's about as far as the similarities go. In any event, this isn't a court of law, it's a senate hearing. (a point which seems to be getting lost in all this discussion about due process and innocent until guilty).
> 
> .




Throwing  around accusations no matter where you are should involve some evidence. Its fcuking ridiculous to say "not a court of law, so lets just accept made up sht".

Mitt Romney was accused of not paying tax for 10 years. After he lost the guy making the accusation admitted it was a lie and said "well he lost", so it worked.

Bill "rapey" mcshorten will be sweating it if this is the direction we are going.


----------



## Darc Knight (28 September 2018)

moXJO said:


> Throwing  around accusations no matter where you are should involve some evidence. Its fcuking ridiculous to say "not a court of law, so lets just accept made up sht".
> 
> Mitt Romney was accused of not paying tax for 10 years. After he lost the guy making the accusation admitted it was a lie and said "well he lost", so it worked.
> 
> Bill "rapey" mcshorten will be sweating it if this is the direction we are going.




Cmon Mo. If someone attacks your property or Family and you're the only witness are you going to remain quiet?

Even so, there's four independent accussers, make it five if Trump's reference counts against Kav.


----------



## Darc Knight (28 September 2018)

luutzu said:


> Being a Supreme Court Judge he would rule on, say, US presidential (war) power... decide on US multinationals and the impact of their operations outside the US.
> 
> There are cases from victims of US corporations operating in Indonesia suing them under him... he told them to bugger off because this and that.




Considering all the "Democrats are scum" talk, he's not fit to be a Supreme Court Judge ruling on matters between Republicans and Democrats.


----------



## moXJO (28 September 2018)

.


Darc Knight said:


> Cmon Mo. If someone attacks your property or Family and you're the only witness are you going to remain quiet?
> 
> Even so, there's four independent accussers, make it five if Trump's reference counts against Kav.



And their witnesses at this stage denied.
The others are not exactly credible. Ford has put the best case forward(with zero evidence.

The dems literally sat on the information during the confirmation hearings and then tried to delay. You have protesters outside prior to the rape accusations. Who would do anything to tear down kav. They believe he will reverse abortion laws so will do anything for the greater good.

Theres plenty of motives.


Pretty sure I'd bash on sight, or call the police. Not wait a few decades till the perpetrator became a high court judge. And then pinged him in the final days of confirmation. Plus I'd forget where the crime scene was and call witnesses that said it didn't happen.

Anyway reps are screwed on confirmation now. They would be better to rush an investigation and try and win midterms. Trying to expose dems lies in the process. Gop base want kav in though so its a tough call.

If kav gets in they will tear down whats left of Obamas legacy.


----------



## Darc Knight (28 September 2018)

Look, if all this is a conspiracy I'll gladly admit being wrong and enjoy watching the perpetrators brought to account. I'll personally offer to publicly flog the offenders.
Just seems too much going against it atm.


----------



## basilio (28 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Look, if all this is a conspiracy I'll gladly admit being wrong and enjoy watching the perpetrators brought to account. I'll personally offer to publicly flog the offenders.
> Just seems too much going against it atm.




Ah a  Democratic conspiracy.  To believe this you have to believe a 53 year  upper class Republician family College professor had to construct a story about her abuse by Brett Kavanaugh and tell her therapist and husband in 2012 way before he was ever in the frame for a Supreme Court position.
She then had to expose herself to a million rabid haters and being slandered as a liar just for saying what had happened to her as teenager.
And why did she do it ? Because in her heart she believes the Amercian public should know a critical element of the character of this new Supreme Court judge who will swing the court for years to come.

And there are at least two other independent people who allege they have experienced  assaults by Brett Kavanaugh. At least one has said she has other people who will corroroborate her story

And despite these allegations the Senate committe will not make any further inquiries but wants to immediately vote Brad Kavanaugh into office.


----------



## Tisme (28 September 2018)

luutzu said:


> I take it you never have much experience recalling an attempted rape when you were 15. Doing it in front of cameras, wrinkled old men, and a nice lady lawyer representing them.
> 
> Why can't they all be like Brett. Confident, manly, flippant, likes beer and alcohol so much he blacks out a fair few time... what? doesn't everybody?
> 
> but of course not too manly as he kept a diary and goes teary... praying for Dr. Ford




She would have been schooled for weeks to provide theatre.... her acting was abysmal.


----------



## McLovin (28 September 2018)

moXJO said:


> Throwing  around accusations no matter where you are should involve some evidence. Its fcuking ridiculous to say "not a court of law, so lets just accept made up sht".




Yeah. Take it up with the First Amendment, not me.


----------



## luutzu (28 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> She would have been schooled for weeks to provide theatre.... her acting was abysmal.




His was Oscar worthy though. 

Saw a few clips of his responses. What a di[k. 

Coaching his kids football was the most important thing to him... booohuu huu... now he can't do it anymore [because parents will freaking not trust me with their kids]... booo hu hu.

If coaching football is the most important thing in your life, why are you a lawyer, working hard to become a judge? Natural talent too good to waste or what?

Talk about crocodile tears, using his kids innocence.

And oh... I like beer, don't you?

Yea azzhole, most people like a drink here and there. They don't get black out drunk so often their best friend wrote a book about it. 


Seems everyday, the saintly imperial veneer of justice, equality, mediocrity... loses a piece.


----------



## Tisme (29 September 2018)

luutzu said:


> His was Oscar worthy though.
> 
> Saw a few clips of his responses. What a di[k.
> 
> ...




This is a difference between the accused and the accuser. The burden of proof is on the accuser, to be otherwise would mean most of us would dob ourselves in for being a menace to society at some stage in our life (sans Bas of course ).


----------



## Tisme (29 September 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> I don't care but it's all a bit ridiculous.
> This is a sign of where the world is going.




A world full of potato heads, with sparse pockets comprising mystical beings who practice the fabled ancient art of "freethought"?


----------



## CanOz (29 September 2018)

Actually, maybe it's not so crazy. What if the FBI actually find evidence that kav has committed a crime here and end up getting a conviction. Would people say that justice has been served or will it just be another witch hunt over?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2018)

CanOz said:


> Actually, maybe it's not so crazy. What if the FBI actually find evidence that kav has committed a crime here and end up getting a conviction. Would people say that justice has been served or will it just be another witch hunt over?




I guess it depends on the standard of proof required.

If I was in the position to vote for a US Supreme Court judge, I wouldn't vote for Kavanagh in a pink fit, but as a general principle allegations like those against him should be proven, not just related as distant memories from an alcohol induced fog.


----------



## basilio (29 September 2018)

From Facebook
_O.B. : I was a dude who went to parties in the eighties, and worked on the yearbook staff, so let me shed some light on a few things:

 "Boofing" doesn't refer to farts or flatulence. Boofing is a very specific category of anal insertion. He lied about that. Under oath.

 "The devil's triangle" is not and has never been a drinking game. It's a euphemism for a threesome involving two men and one woman. He lied about that too. Under oath.

 Yearbook editors do not doctor or change copy provided by students for their dedication page without their permission. Whatever he wrote in his yearbook is 100% his own words. He lied about that as well. Under oath.

 Just like he lied about his drinking, just like he lied about never having assaulted anyone, just like he lied about the reasons why he won't agree to an FBI investigation to prove his innocence, just like he lied about not having tried to rape Dr. Ford at that party.

The boy who tried to rape Dr. Ford at that party was exactly the same entitled, binge-drinking jock douchebag who got away with the same exact crap at your school in the eighties and nineties. 

 That's who Brett Kavanaugh is.

I don't even have to believe Dr. Ford. I do, but I don't have to. I just don't believe him. None of what he said today was true, and it was obvious. His lies were absurd and easy to debunk. He isn't even a good liar.

 Here's a photo of the real Brett Kavanaugh. Not the sniveling gaslighting jackass in a cheap suit who barked at Senators today and whined about not being handed a job he feels entitled to. 

 Here's the guy who shoved an innocent girl into a room with his friend, locked the door, tried to rape her, and then went on about his day. That's his true face.

 He lied under oath for the better part of an hour today, and every man who grew up in the same era xxxing knows it_


----------



## basilio (29 September 2018)

So the FBI has one  whole week to re-examine Brett Kavanaughs background and come to a conclusion on the "credible" allegations that have been made. And then the Senate will vote in Brett Kavanaugh for life as Supreme Court Judge.


----------



## basilio (29 September 2018)

You know if someone was serious about this investigation they would just investigate Bret Kavanaugh on grounds of perjury. His protestations of being a High School virgin, his deception about the meanings of the various phrases he used in his yearbook, his denial of being a regular drunk would be relatively easy to investigate. 
So then you have to ask whether a person who perjures themselves on many relevant facts before a Senate Committe is fit and proper to be a Supreme Court judge.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 September 2018)

basilio said:


> So the FBI has one  whole week to re-examine Brett Kavanaughs background and come to a conclusion on the "credible" allegations that have been made. And then the Senate will vote in Brett Kavanaugh for life as Supreme Court Judge.




It should be a longer investigation that's for sure, considering it's a lifetime appointment.


----------



## wayneL (29 September 2018)

The Saad Truth - Kav and confirmation bias.


----------



## luutzu (29 September 2018)

basilio said:


> You know if someone was serious about this investigation they would just investigate Bret Kavanaugh on grounds of perjury. His protestations of being a High School virgin, his deception about the meanings of the various phrases he used in his yearbook, his denial of being a regular drunk would be relatively easy to investigate.
> So then you have to ask whether a person who perjures themselves on many relevant facts before a Senate Committe is fit and proper to be a Supreme Court judge.




If the FBI aren't stacked by the Trump admin, Kavo there will find the need to take time off to be with his family rather than a lifetime appointment.

Apparently the special counsel hired by the GOP to question Dr Ford asked Kavo a couple questions then suddenly got removed by the same GOP Senators who hired her.

She asked him to clarify a specific date in his diary where he scheduled an afternoon at the gym then on to a pool party which might coincide with Dr Ford's claim. 

The wise Senators stopped that line of questioning because they don't like where it's going.


----------



## luutzu (29 September 2018)

Tisme said:


> This is a difference between the accused and the accuser. The burden of proof is on the accuser, to be otherwise would mean most of us would dob ourselves in for being a menace to society at some stage in our life (sans Bas of course ).




Some of us, not most. Most of us are law abiding citizen. Just like most of us don't like "beer" so much drink ourselves blank.

The FBI might demand a bit more proof than a signed statement of innocence from Kavo's best buddy though. Jeez man, how do you get out of a rape accusation with a letter from your lawyer saying you didn't do it. 

I also like the outraged and righteous anger Senator Graham felt for Kavanaugh. He goes on and on about the injustices, the reputation... then... "Judge Kavanaugh, are you a gang banger?".

Kavo: "No."

Alright then. See?


----------



## basilio (29 September 2018)

It seems that this was the push that persuaded Senater Flake to demand an FBI investigation before he would would allow the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.

* In the elevator video, two rape survivors show how democracy works *
Jill Abramson
Anyone needing a lesson in how American democracy should work must watch Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher hold Jeff Flake to account

 @JillAbramson 
Fri 28 Sep 2018 18.24 EDT   Last modified on Fri 28 Sep 2018 21.35 EDT

*Shares*
712
 
* Comments*
 563 

 Facebook   Twitter   Pinterest 
‘It was thrilling to watch, not because a senator was being put on the spot but because this is what it means for citizens to hold power to account.’
Truth spoke to power. And the US Senate finally listened.

In the end, after a full day of official Senate hearings, all it took was two gutsy women, Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher, to stop the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. The two women, who said they were survivors of sexual assault, stubbornly refused to let the elevator doors close as Senator Jeff Flake, the critical swing vote on the Senate judiciary committee, was on his way to cast his vote to advance the supreme court nominee.

That was before he got in the elevator. Archila and Gallagher blocked him from scurrying away. Archila, who had never told her story of being raped as a small child, spoke first.





*  Rape survivors' powerful rebuke to Jeff Flake a key moment on day of drama  *
Read more
“I told it because I recognized in Dr Ford’s story that she is telling the truth,” she told Flake, her voice breaking with emotion. “What you are doing is allowing someone who actually violated a woman to sit on the supreme court. This is not tolerable. You have children in your family. Think about them.” She wanted him to feel her fury.

Then came Gallagher. “I was sexually assaulted and nobody believed me,” she said. “I didn’t tell anyone, and you’re telling all women that they don’t matter.” The women protesting with them gained strength as they spoke. The elevator doors began to close but the crowd made sure they didn’t.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...o-ana-maria-archila-maria-gallagher-democracy


----------



## noirua (29 September 2018)

*Trump orders FBI to conduct "supplemental investigation" into Kavanaugh allegations — live updates*

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavana...o-confirm-supreme-court-nominee-live-updates/

I guess they will get there in the end with the FBI involvement. However, if both sides say different then one has obviously lied. If a person lies to the FBI it is a criminal offence and the accuser has no defence or the accused. So the matter is set to run and run.

A person is a survivor unless they lied. So the matter is yet to conclude as either side could be described as a potential survivor.

Both parties had plenty of time to learn their lines. Have a look at some videos of the case and see who it was who was reading from notes nearly all of the time. Both sides are intelligent people, one a doctor and one a lawyer. Was there a need for one party to read the notes and not go from memory?

Therefore I know who lied!  Do you?


----------



## CanOz (29 September 2018)

I haven't watched the videos but i can tell you that with any kind of public speaking you are gonna need notes, FFS!!


----------



## CanOz (29 September 2018)

noirua said:


> *Trump orders FBI to conduct "supplemental investigation" into Kavanaugh allegations — live updates*
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavana...o-confirm-supreme-court-nominee-live-updates/
> 
> ...





Maybe he should have read more....


----------



## luutzu (29 September 2018)

CanOz said:


> View attachment 89526
> 
> 
> Maybe he should have read more....




One red line when the FBI talk to him and he's stuffed.


----------



## noirua (30 September 2018)

CanOz said:


> I haven't watched the videos but i can tell you that with any kind of public speaking you are gonna need notes, FFS!!




A person can have notes which are prompts but there should be no need to keep reading. In the same situation if I continued reading at length it would mean I was having difficulty learning my lines, just like an actor or actress.  If something happened a long time ago and it was very dramatic then it should be remembered. At age 5 I suffered a fall and that's something in my mind to this very day, no need for notes, despite being more than 50 years ago. The scars are reminders.

There are some who can speak for an hour or more without notes.  The Federal Parliament doesn't allow a person to read just from notes. As they would say, learn it.


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2018)

CanOz said:


> View attachment 89526
> 
> 
> Maybe he should have read more....




Who put the questions and how were they couched? 

It's generally far easier to play the victim than it is to navigate accusations ... the old adage of it takes five positives to counter one negative.


----------



## Knobby22 (30 September 2018)

I'm a little surprised one of the Republican Senators let his morals get in the way of politics. The powers that be will need to kick him out to warn the others to toe the line. I mean what's the point of Rupert telling the President what to do when one of the drones tries to think independently of Fox?


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2018)

Barbara Heineback on ABC news right now saying it as it is and lamenting the spectacle, the theatre, the women trashed by the #metoo/feminist cause, the damage being done to the USA democracy with the inquisition of a potential supreme court justice....and she's black and a female = traitor material for some.


----------



## Knobby22 (30 September 2018)

Are you saying the women should shut up for the cause and no questions asked of a permanent appointment?


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Are you saying the women should shut up for the cause and no questions asked of a permanent appointment?




Umm what part of being able to read is difficult for you ... or is it you just a poor attempt at trolling?

The woman I named is very concerned her country of birth is going down a path of no return, to a place of cemented spite, envy, hatred, where usurers conscript people with good intentions into matyrdom and book rights e.g. the coached women contriving to destroy and old school tie judge.....where is the #metoo movement protecting the women from themselves in this instance? 

As she stated none of this inquisition is normal. She was First Lady Carter's right hand goto and hardly republican; she knows her way around govt. She also pointed out that none of Ford's four witnesses agreed they were even at the party Ford named. Reminds of those poor fathers back a couple of decades who were destroyed by their daughters who had false memories implanted by hypnotic psychologists.


----------



## Knobby22 (30 September 2018)

Ok, thanks for the insult.
Yes I see where you are coming from and it is a good point. That Stanford Professor was probably influenced by the me too movement when she told the Democrat senator what happened and asked to keep her name secret. She was betrayed and her career will be in ruins. The me too movement hasn't protected her.  especially since as you say her memories are false.


----------



## CrewBear (30 September 2018)

This is always going to be a difficult one 

As a young drunken teenage boy trying to grab a girl for a fumble, they’ll be a lot of men that have fallen into that category, ashamed of their actions. But this doesn’t reflect who they are now.

That said that doesn’t make this okay. 

He’s already have 6 FBI background checks but if he needs an investigation that’s fine too but we should all remember that he’s innocent until proven guilty. 

The world would be a disaster if everyone is guilty until proven innocent, let’s not ruin this mans life and reputation in the process of finding out.


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Ok, thanks for the insult.
> Yes I see where you are coming from and it is a good point. That Stanford Professor was probably influenced by the me too movement when she told the Democrat senator what happened and asked to keep her name secret. She was betrayed and her career will be in ruins. The me too movement hasn't protected her.  especially since as you say her memories are false.




yeah, but you know I enjoy your posts so there's no malice or vitriol behind it.


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2018)

CrewBear said:


> This is always going to be a difficult one
> 
> As a young drunken teenage boy trying to grab a girl for a fumble, they’ll be a lot of men that have fallen into that category, ashamed of their actions. But this doesn’t reflect who they are now.
> 
> ...





If the FBI had found him unsuitable first time around there wouldn't be another six. We are witnessing grind politics, where authorities are worn down to accept they aren't umpires but conduits for political will.

And yes every young man who finds himself in a slap and tickle situation has his mother in one ear and wee willy in the other. I don't know if ashamed is the right word, more confusion, blurred awareness and a trepidation that disappears when the girl turns up for more of the same..... validation of manliness right there


----------



## CrewBear (30 September 2018)

The think the background checks are for different appoints rather than rechecks. 

A background check is very different to an investigation, with any serious allegation it needs to be investigatated but it’s important that he’s treated as innocent until proven guilty


----------



## noirua (30 September 2018)

CrewBear said:


> The think the background checks are for different appoints rather than rechecks.
> 
> A background check is very different to an investigation, with any serious allegation it needs to be investigatated but it’s important that he’s treated as innocent until proven guilty




At this stage it is just a job application and the matter of guilt or otherwise does not apply. Even on the final vote it is still a job application, success or failure. The matter as far as the Senate is concerned is then closed.


----------



## basilio (30 September 2018)

Let's clear up a couple of points about the presentations and questioning of Dr Ford  and Judge Kavanaugh

1) Both parties released  their opening statements before the day. Dr Ford had to make sure she had a clear statement of exactly what she could  (and couldn't) remember. She was also redescribing a traumatic event that had undermined her life for the past 36 years.  It was difficult enough to front up for ripping off the  emotional scabs and reliving the assault. Attempting to just "wing it" and talk off the top of her head as if she could control her emotions? That is  completly  unreasonable. And why would she risk accidentally changing  anything about her statement by not reading it ?

2) Brett Kavanaugh also produced an opening statement. When Donald Trump read it he decided it was unacceptable so he rang Brett and said "You have to go an the attack !!  Full  throttle. Take no prisoners.  " And so it was done. Brett acknowledged he was ignoring his initial paper and just did a Trump.  It certainly made Trump recognise why he had chosen him as the next Supreme Court Judge and he said so.

3) Both Dr Ford and Judge Kavanaugh had to respond to the questioning of the Senate and  female prosecutor. *Dr Ford answered every question posed.* She attempted to explore options. She explained *as an expert witness *why she remembered some parts of the attack but not others. The most vivid recollection she had ? *The continual raucous laughter of Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge as they tried to rip off her clothes in their drunken state.*

4)* Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly refused to answer questions. *He dodged, weaved, ignored  and overtalked his questioners.  See Canozs post 215 for a red and blue pictue comparison of their testimonies.

So who would an independent person judge was the clearest witness? Who answered the questions asked?

______________________

A slap and tickle is a description of a couple of teenagers enjoying  a hot session on the couch.  Mum coming in and pricking the bubble could be an embarassment.

Having a couple of drunken guys lock you in a room, jump on you and try to rip your clothes off is sexual assault. It is not a slap and tickle.  Trying to paint this assault with that language ? No surprise really for Tisme.


----------



## basilio (30 September 2018)

*The 17 Most Striking Moments From the Kavanaugh Hearing*
In a historic hearing, the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Christine Blasey Ford about her sexual-assault allegation against the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.


..
*4. Ford Rejects the Mistaken-Identity Theory*

*Feinstein: *I’m sorry. I want to ask you one question about the attack itself. You are very clear about the attack, being pushed into the room. You say you don’t know quite by whom, but that it was Brett Kavanaugh that covered your mouth to prevent you from screaming. And then you escaped. How are you so sure that it was he?

*Ford: *The same way I’m sure I’m talking to you right now. Basic memory functions. And also just the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine in the brain that sort of, as you know, encodes that neurotransmitter encodes memories into the hippocampus, so the trauma-related experience is locked there whereas other details kind of drift.

*Feinstein: *So what you’re telling us is this could not be a case of mistaken identity.

*Ford: *Absolutely not.

*5. The Most Vivid Memory of the Incident*

*Patrick Leahy: * What is the strongest memory you have?

*Ford: *The strongest memory of the incident?

*Leahy: *Something that you cannot forget. Take whatever time you need.

*Ford: *Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two. And their having fun at my expense.

*Leahy: *You have never forgotten that laughter. You’ve never forgotten them laughing at you.

*Ford: *They were laughing with each other.

*Leahy: *And you were the object of the laughter?

*Ford: *I was, you know, underneath one of them while the two laughed. Two friends having a really good time with one another.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/kavanaugh-ford-hearing/571501/


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2018)

basilio said:


> Having a couple of drunken guys lock you in a room, jump on you and try to rip your clothes off is sexual assault. It is not a slap and tickle. Trying to paint this assault with that language ? No surprise really for Tisme.




I saw the same lady that Tisme did on ABC Breakfast. I doubt if she would be lying. She simply said that Ford could not back up her story, the witnesses she cited could not remember being at the party.


----------



## Darc Knight (30 September 2018)

A few points if I may: firstly this occurred during the early 80s, before Feminists destroyed truth and made it such that sexual assault includes looking at a Female.
Secondly, Ivy League spoilt brats drunk. Law students.
Thirdly, Donald Trump rang a potential Supreme Court Judge - holy Moses.
Fourth, Donald Trump got him to change his testimony -- WTF (excuse my Frenxh).
Fifth, imagine the stress this Woman is under. I can't fathom it.


----------



## basilio (30 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I saw the same lady that Tisme did on ABC Breakfast. I doubt if she would be lying. She simply said that Ford could not back up her story, the witnesses she cited could not remember being at the party.




Back track a bit please.

No one else at the party knew about the assault at the time. Dr Ford escaped without going back into the rest of the group.
Would they remember being at a particular  probably unmemorable party after 36 years ? Maybe . I couldn't be sure in a month of sundays.

Would they* want* to remember being at the party ? Probably a more pertinent question. After seeing what has happened to Dr Ford as a result of her accusations  I can see many people not wanting to follow her path of noteriety and all of the kids at this party were part of the elite social group. 

But if one was looking for independent confirmation of the party and the assault  how does this stack up?
*Kavanaugh Accuser’s Schoolmate Says Assault Was Chatter at School Afterward*
*Cristina King Miranda went to all-girls prep school with Christine Blasey Ford*
Posted Sep 19, 2018 3:28 PM
Griffin Connolly
The entrance to the Holton Arms School in Bethesda, Maryland, is shown recently.

A classmate of Christine Blasey Ford, who attended the all-girls prep school, backed up her accusation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who attended the all-boys Georgetown Preparatory School, assaulted her when the two were students. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

An schoolmate of Christine Blasey Ford, the California psychology professor who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were in high school, backed Ford’s claim Wednesday in a letter she posted to Facebook.

“Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me, I remember her,” wrote Cristina King Miranda, who graduated a year ahead of Ford at Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, Maryland. Holton-Arms is an all-girls school whose students frequently socialized with Kavanaugh’s all-male alma mater, Georgetown Prep.

“This incident did happen,” Miranda wrote. “Many of us heard about it in school and Christine’s recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true.”

Ford told the Washington Post she was afraid Kavanaugh might “inadvertently kill” her during a high school party in the early 1980s, alleging that the Supreme Court nominee pinned her to a bed and groped her over a one-piece bathing suit.

Miranda, who works in Mexico City as a performing arts curator, described in her letter a rampant drinking culture among the elite prep schools in the Washington area.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/polit...oolmate-says-assault-chatter-school-afterward


----------



## basilio (30 September 2018)

*Trump to Kavanaugh before hearing: Be strong in your denials*
By Ruth Brown

September 27, 2018 | 10:49am

Modal Trigger





Getty Images
*More On:*
*Kavanaugh Confirmation Showdown*
*Kavanaugh's hearings are a national disaster — and the worst is yet to come*
*FBI contacts second Kavanaugh accuser in investigation*
*Sex assault survivor who confronted Jeff Flake speaks out*
*Kavanaugh pal Mark Judge says he's willing to cooperate with FBI probe*
President Trump phoned Brett Kavanaugh ahead of Thursday’s hearing into sex assault allegations against the Supreme Court nominee, offering him support and advice, according to a report.

Trump told Kavanaugh to be strong and aggressive in his denials, and not to be afraid to push back against the accusations against him, “someone familiar with the call” told CNN.
https://nypost.com/2018/09/27/trump-to-kavanaugh-before-hearing-be-strong-in-your-denials/


----------



## Darc Knight (30 September 2018)

So many people have so much to lose by getting involved. These are rich, well connected people - "don't get involved, don't get involved" would be the mantra from family and friends of those who could be witnesses.

Christine Ford would probably be depressed and potentially suicidal. Her marriage would be in trouble from all the stress. It's sad, its wrong!


----------



## luutzu (30 September 2018)

CrewBear said:


> This is always going to be a difficult one
> 
> As a young drunken teenage boy trying to grab a girl for a fumble, they’ll be a lot of men that have fallen into that category, ashamed of their actions. But this doesn’t reflect who they are now.
> 
> ...




Say what? 

Man, you must have hang out with the wrong kind of crowd to generalise like that about teenage boys or men.

I don't know teenage boy or grown men who gets drunk and "grab a girl for a fumble"... and not either be beaten up or be taken to court when they're seen doing it. 

She alleged that as a 15 year old girl at a friend's party, on her way to a bathroom upstairs she was pushed into a bedroom; the door was locked behind her with two males turning up the music, laughing their azzes off as one of them got on top of her, trying to get her clothes off to rape her. 

That's attempted rape, it would have been rape if the other douche didn't also jumped on and she managed to get away when the rapist fell over. 

That's not "a fumble".

And no one is saying he should be locked up because Dr Ford said he was the one trying to rape her. All they're asking for is that the FBI should look into it because her statement are credible, she have named another witness in the room etc. etc. 

If that republican Senator didn't vote to have the FBI look into it, the GOP would have moved his nomination to the final stage where it's very possible he would be appoint a Justice for life.


----------



## basilio (30 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> So many people have so much to lose by getting involved. These are rich, well connected people - "don't get involved, don't get involved" would be the mantra from family and friends of those who could be witnesses.
> 
> Christine Ford would probably be depressed and potentially suicidal. Her marriage would be in trouble from all the stress. It's sad, its wrong!




She has been doxed and has had to leave her home and go to another house with security guards. Her email has been hacked and people have been sending out messages in her name refuting her testimony.

 
*Now that Ford has become a symbol for American women, it's unlikely she'll fade into anonymity *
Coming forward threw her life into chaos and her testimony riveted the country, but she hasn’t discussed her plans for the future

Erin Durkin in New York

Sat 29 Sep 2018 01.00 EDT

*Shares*
179
Christine Blasey Ford is sworn in before testifying before the Senate judiciary committee on 27 September. Photograph: POOL/Reuters
When Christine Blasey Ford stepped before the Senate judiciary committee to detail her alleged assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh when they were both teenagers, she was, in her own words, “terrified”.

She described an attack that she said had jolted her life – even before the man whom she alleges is responsible for it became a nominee to the country’s highest court. Before her account became public and threw his nomination into jeopardy, and before she became one of the most visible sexual assault accusers since the advent of the #MeToo movement.

Ford, 51, recounted insisting that two front doors be fitted when she and her husband remodeled their home. She suffered, she said, from anxiety and post-traumatic stress symptoms, including claustrophobia and panic disorder. She struggled academically at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and had trouble forming new friendships, especially with boys.

Yet Ford moved on – and across the country – leaving the well-off suburban Maryland area where she grew up and attended the all-girls private school Holton-Arms, and established herself as a well-respected professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and researcher at Stanford. Some of her research dealt with how people recover after trauma. She married her husband Russell Ford more than fifteen years ago, and they had two children.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-women-its-unlikely-shell-fade-into-anonymity


----------



## luutzu (30 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I saw the same lady that Tisme did on ABC Breakfast. I doubt if she would be lying. She simply said that Ford could not back up her story, the witnesses she cited could not remember being at the party.




That's not what I heard. 

The other people she named simply say that they do not remember the alleged rape attempt. They were downstairs and did not know anything about it. That's all they say. 

Dr Ford  did not accuse them of anything. She said that she was at a party where they were also at... I think it's one of their house. 

Kavo's diary did show that he was at that party. Or at least a party with the people Dr Ford named. We didn't get to know because the GOP senators stopped their hired lawyer from asking Kavo further. 

The FBI will though.


----------



## basilio (30 September 2018)

Another persepctive on Brett Kananaugh for the Supreme Court.
The Jesuit Review


Politics & SocietyEditorials
*The Editors: It is time for the Kavanaugh nomination to be withdrawn*

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today clearly demonstrated both the seriousness of her allegation of assault by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and the stakes of this question for the whole country. Judge Kavanaugh denied the accusation and emphasized in his testimony that the opposition of Democratic senators to his nomination and their consequent willingness to attack him was established long before Dr. Blasey’s allegation was known.

Evaluating the credibility of these competing accounts is a question about which people of good will can and do disagree. The editors of this review have no special insight into who is telling the truth. If Dr. Blasey’s allegation is true, the assault and Judge Kavanaugh’s denial of it mean that he should not be seated on the U.S. Supreme Court. But even if the credibility of the allegation has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt and even if further investigation is warranted to determine its validity or clear Judge Kavanaugh’s name, we recognize that this nomination is no longer in the best interests of the country. While we previously endorsed the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh on the basis of his legal credentials and his reputation as a committed textualist, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn.

The nomination of Judge Kavanaugh has become a referendum on how to address allegations of sexual assault.

*If this were a question of establishing Judge Kavanaugh’s legal or moral responsibility for the assault described by Dr. Blasey, then far more stringent standards of proof would apply.* His presumption of innocence might settle the matter in his favor, absent further investigation and new evidence.* But the question is not solely about Judge Kavanaugh’s responsibility, nor is it any longer primarily about his qualifications. Rather it is about the prudence of his nomination and potential confirmation. In addition to being a fight over policy issues, which it already was, his nomination has also become a referendum on how to address allegations of sexual assault.
*
https://www.americamagazine.org/pol...ors-it-time-kavanaugh-nomination-be-withdrawn

*Five questions (and answers) about Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Nomination*
https://www.americamagazine.org/pol...-answers-about-brett-kavanaughs-supreme-court


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2018)

I don't see why you are so hyped up about Kavanaugh bas, it's all happening in another country, zero relevance to us here at the bottom of the world.


----------



## basilio (30 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't see why you are so hyped up about Kavanaugh bas, it's all happening in another country, zero relevance to us here at the bottom of the world.




One of the most corrupt and dangerous Presidents of the most powerful country in the world is determined to appoint a Supreme Court judge  for the next 30 years who is under a sexual abuse cloud. His political party is also determined to go ahead with the nomination.

This applicant has also indicated that he believes a sitting President should not have to face any criminal accusations while in office.

The applicant will change the balance of power in the Supreme Court to a very conservative bent.

How completely corrupt does the juduciall/politicial system of the USA have to be before we become concerned ? What message does this send around the world ? 

No problems there ?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2018)

basilio said:


> No problems there ?




Not for us.

I'm assuming you are Australian, if not I apologise.


----------



## basilio (30 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Not for us.
> 
> I'm assuming you are Australian, if not I apologise.




Sure I'm Australian. But I hope I can see beyond our borders and recognise the influence of a country as powerful as the US.
Probably more important is recognising how getting away with  such a breathtaking abuse of power gives a green light to other similar demagogues.
_______________
The accepted theory behind appointments to the Supreme Court is that candidates have an excellent knoweldge of the law but are seen as reasonably impartial in their deliberations. Inside this framework political parties angle to put in Justices who see the world in broadly their light.

In this case the candidate has -
1) Already indicated that he is willing to protect the President from any crimininal charges
2) A big problem relating to a credible series of sexual abuse accusations.

In any other situation he should be withdrawn from consideration and another (conservative) candidate proposed. But not today.


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2018)

The left has opened Pandora's Box,  watch what happens next.


----------



## Tisme (1 October 2018)

basilio said:


> ............ ? No surprise really for Tisme.




I have a 7 foot ladder here if you have trouble getting on your high horse Bas

Here's a tool you might find useful when starting an argument:


----------



## Tisme (1 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> The left has opened Pandora's Box,  watch what happens next.




But only people who have escaped the mind stupefying, virulent contagion that is sweeping the western world will be able to recognise it. We are nearing our Thermopylae moment.


----------



## Darc Knight (1 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> The left has opened Pandora's Box,  watch what happens next.




What, Tisme posts?

"mind stupefying", "virulent contagion", "Thermopylae".
Very good Tis


----------



## Knobby22 (1 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> The left has opened Pandora's Box,  watch what happens next.



Gutter journalism from Newscorp?


----------



## basilio (1 October 2018)

Tisme said:


> I have a 7 foot ladder here if you have trouble getting on your high horse Bas
> 
> Here's a tool you might find useful when starting an argument:
> 
> View attachment 89559




Tisme decides to conflate a hot slap and tickle session with a violent sexual assault to muddy the waters.
Opening gambit 101 of defense lawyers in sex trials.

But it did bring up some previous memories which relate to the conversation.

Years ago we had some tough little alpha male year 9 boys who thought it was great sport to flush new year 7  kids heads in the dunnies. It was always difficult to pin anything on them because the kids were terrified and mortified and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the little xhits would belt the hell out of them if they spoke up.

One day however we found a poor tyke hystericial, sopping wet and with xhit in his hair. Turns it he was flushed but because he was really special (a bit of a swot actually) one kind soul did a really  sloppy dump before the push and flush. Nice stuff.

The money shot however was in the interviews. "It wuz jus a joke Sir !!" Bit like a slap and tickle really.


----------



## Tisme (1 October 2018)

basilio said:


> Tisme decides to conflate a hot slap and tickle session with a violent sexual assault to muddy the waters.
> Opening gambit 101 of defense lawyers in sex trials.
> 
> But it did bring up some previous memories which relate to the conversation.
> ...





Conflation of facts requires at least two of them...there are missing elements in your argument = verifiable facts....

I'm not sure what royal flushing has to do with Brett Kavanaugh ... is that the latest testimonial from another false memory syndrome victim looking for 15 minutes of fame and book deal?


----------



## basilio (1 October 2018)

CrewBear said:


> This is always going to be a difficult one
> 
> As a young drunken teenage boy trying to grab a girl for a fumble, they’ll be a lot of men that have fallen into that category, ashamed of their actions. But this doesn’t reflect who they are now.
> 
> That said that doesn’t make this okay.






Tisme said:


> And yes every young man who finds himself in a slap and tickle situation has his mother in one ear and wee willy in the other. I don't know if ashamed is the right word, more confusion, blurred awareness and a trepidation that disappears when the girl turns up for more of the same..... validation of manliness right there






luutzu said:


> Man, you must have hang out with the wrong kind of crowd to generalise like that about teenage boys or men.
> 
> I don't know teenage boy or grown men who gets drunk and "grab a girl for a fumble"... and not either be beaten up or be taken to court when they're seen doing it.
> 
> ...




Tisme,  everybody knows what you were trying to do with your use and support of the "slap and tickle" comment to muddy the waters on the alleged  sexual assault

It's relation to the hystericial kid with xhit in his hair ? "It wuz just a joke sir !!"
_________________________

And is this another "false memory testimony " ?  xuck off. I had to deal with it. Good result actually. Finally nailed the smarmy little xhit who thought it was "just a joke" to flush his  young schoolmates in a xhitty toilet.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 October 2018)

Will all those women who have NOT been the victim of sexual assault, please raise their hands ?


----------



## Tisme (1 October 2018)

basilio said:


> Tisme,  everybody knows what you were trying to do with your use and support of the "slap and tickle" comment to muddy the waters on the alleged  sexual assault
> 
> It's relation to the hystericial kid with xhit in his hair ? "It wuz just a joke sir !!"
> _________________________
> ...




Me muddy the waters? Just about everything you post includes links and facsimiles of unrelated diatribe to the core issues. You drown out any clarity with sheer volume of non peer reviewed opinion pieces.

In some sand stone universities there is tradition of debating against your own conditioning ... you might like to try it sometime.


----------



## basilio (1 October 2018)

Tisme your contribution to these discussions is poisoning the well.


----------



## Darc Knight (1 October 2018)

I dislike misandrists and their very vocal march as much as anyone, but I'll defend anyone who is the victim of a grave injustice.
Too much of this strikes me as being wrong and this Christine Ford strikes me as telling the truth, and this Brett Kav and Donald Trump as being absolute scumbags.


----------



## wayneL (1 October 2018)

I love how some people don't see the irony of their own comments


----------



## basilio (1 October 2018)

Let's say  Judge Kavanaugh is successful in becoming a Supreme Court judge.

Then lets say that the sexual assault accusations don't just  die away. In fact other women come forward with further accusations and start to establish a pattern. How would the legal system deal with such a situation?


----------



## SirRumpole (1 October 2018)

basilio said:


> Let's say  Judge Kavanaugh is successful in becoming a Supreme Court judge.
> 
> Then lets say that the sexual assault accusations don't just  die away. In fact other women come forward with further accusations and start to establish a pattern. How would the legal system deal with such a situation?




Once he's in, he can't be removed as far as I know, so the legal system would just have to accept that.


----------



## Tisme (1 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Once he's in, he can't be removed as far as I know, so the legal system would just have to accept that.




Can be impeached and removed, but that would be a first over there.


----------



## wayneL (1 October 2018)

basilio said:


> Let's say  Judge Kavanaugh is successful in becoming a Supreme Court judge.
> 
> Then lets say that the sexual assault accusations don't just  die away. In fact other women come forward with further accusations and start to establish a pattern. How would the legal system deal with such a situation?



Never heard of due process?


----------



## SirRumpole (1 October 2018)

https://www.history.com/news/has-a-u-s-supreme-court-justice-ever-been-impeached


----------



## Tisme (2 October 2018)

Because Trump is talking here, you can dismiss it as the words of a crazy man:


----------



## luutzu (2 October 2018)

Tisme said:


> Because Trump is talking here, you can dismiss it as the words of a crazy man:





That's just... wow.


----------



## Tisme (2 October 2018)

Interesting how the worry about Brett ruling on abortion (might overturn Wade vs Roe) and Ford's association:

"
“Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey exposed for ties to Big Pharma abortion pill maker… effort to derail Kavanaugh is plot to protect abortion industry profits”

By Mike Adams

_Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford, who claims — without any evidence — that Kavanaugh inappropriately touched her at a drunken party while in high school, turns out to have ties to an abortion pill pharmaceutical company called Corcept Therapeutics [produces an abortion pill called “mifepristone” also referred to as RU-486]._

_This discovery brings to light an obvious conflict of interest in Blasey’s story, revealing that she works for a pharmaceutical company that manufacturers an abortion pill drug, whose profits could be strongly impacted by future Supreme Court decisions on abortion rights._

_Corcept Therapeutics (Corcept.com) manufacturers and markets an abortion pill drug called mifepristone, and Christine Blasey Ford is a co-author of at least eight published scientific papers produced by the pharmaceutical giant to promote its pills. _You can see Blasey’s name listed on several publications at this Corcept.com web page detailing their research papers.

_Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., a $166 billion market cap company (stock symbol CORT) reportedly has current annual sales of $216 million. The company offers just one drug, mifepristone, which is widely known as an “abortion pill” or RU-486_."


----------



## Tisme (2 October 2018)

http://www.shadolsonshow.com/2018/0...n-promiscuity-54-sex-partners-before-college/


----------



## luutzu (2 October 2018)

Tisme said:


> Interesting how the worry about Brett ruling on abortion (might overturn Wade vs Roe) and Ford's association:
> 
> "
> “Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey exposed for ties to Big Pharma abortion pill maker… effort to derail Kavanaugh is plot to protect abortion industry profits”
> ...




Sure Mike, sure.

A person from a wealthy family, living in Washington, grew up among "the best and brightest", the future emperors... decided that instead of going into law, lobbying or Wall St... the real money is in teaching  psychology. 

And not the kind of psychology that you can consult to the CIA about the best way to torture some folks, but psychology about post-traumatic stress disorders... because as we all know, returned Vets and victims of crime is where all the money is put into.


----------



## Tisme (2 October 2018)




----------



## noirua (2 October 2018)

*Graham: 'I have a lot of sympathy' for Ford but 'allegations did not hold up'*
https://www.yahoo.com/news/1-1-sen-lindsey-graham-124053262.html

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican on the Judiciary Committee, discusses his support of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court on "This Week."


----------



## luutzu (2 October 2018)

noirua said:


> *Graham: 'I have a lot of sympathy' for Ford but 'allegations did not hold up'*
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/1-1-sen-lindsey-graham-124053262.html
> 
> Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican on the Judiciary Committee, discusses his support of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court on "This Week."




Graham was just applying for Attorney General. 

If he truly believe that Ford is lying and her allegations do not hold up, why have sympathies for her? I'd be pretty pissed off at people who knowingly lie to accuse a good, god fearing, beer-drunk virgin who love coaching football (and the law).


----------



## Tisme (2 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> If he truly believe that Ford is lying and her allegations do not hold up, *why have sympathies for her*?.




rabid feminists and #metoo can make any man an empath in the public eye.


----------



## CanOz (2 October 2018)

Tisme said:


>



 Ah, a fox news tramp....


----------



## Tisme (2 October 2018)

CanOz said:


> Ah, a fox news tramp....




twatter, nothing else


----------



## explod (2 October 2018)

Whole thing is a bloody joke:-

"
In an interview with NBC news, Swetnick said that while she saw Kavanaugh aggressively hit on women at parties,* she denied that she actually witnessed him participate in the rapes. *She also said Kavanaugh wasn't a member of a group of boys who assaulted her during one of these parties.

*"I cannot specifically say that he was one of the ones who assaulted me," *Swetnick told Snow. "But, before this happened to me, at that party, I saw Brett Kavanaugh there, I saw Mark Judge, and they were hanging out about where I started to feel disoriented and where the room was and where the other boys were hanging out and laughing."

She added that Kavanaugh is an "admitted blackout drunk and drug addict."

Swetnick did not confirm that she saw Kavanaugh spike punch, one of the claims from her affidavit, she instead said that she merely "saw him around punch containers," and that she wouldn't have accepted a glass of punch if he were to hand it to her.

*"I don’t know what he did," *she added."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...naugh-accuser-backtracks-claims-nbc-interview


----------



## sptrawler (2 October 2018)

explod said:


> Waaay off topic, but:-
> "Mr. Plod is a fictional character in the Noddy children's series by Enid Blyton. He is a forthright police officer who never lets Toyland's crooks escape"...



That makes a lot better storyline, than the current thread, I mean people must have nothing better to do.
Is there any wonder Joe is getting bogged down with general chat, when we have time to discuss this topic, maybe posters should spend as much time researching shares as they do U.S politics.
Then they might be able to give me some useful information, to make some money.


----------



## luutzu (2 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> That makes a lot better storyline, than the current thread, I mean people must have nothing better to do.
> Is there any wonder Joe is getting bogged down with general chat, when we have time to discuss this topic, maybe posters should spend as much time researching shares as they do U.S politics.
> Then they might be able to give me some useful information, to make some money.




Well... if you've been following you would short abortion pill stocks if Kavo is confirmed. Long all kind of beer if he decided to withdraw and spend time with his family.


----------



## noirua (2 October 2018)




----------



## noirua (2 October 2018)

*Julie Swetnick speaks about alleged behavior by Judge Kavanaugh*
http://tvnews63.com/julie-swetnick-speaks-about-alleged-behavior-by-judge-kavanaugh/


----------



## noirua (3 October 2018)

*Report: Chris Dudley allegedly hit man with glass in college bar fight with Brett Kavanaugh*
https://www.yahoo.com/news/report-c...lege-bar-fight-brett-kavanaugh-010709078.html


----------



## wayneL (3 October 2018)

I hereby nominate Jesus of Nazareth as SCOTUS.

Mind you,  there was that incident with the money changers in the Temple... and those persistent rumours of knocking off Mary Magdalene 2000 years ago......


----------



## Tisme (3 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> I hereby nominate Jesus of Nazareth as SCOTUS.
> 
> Mind you,  there was that incident with the money changers in the Temple... and those persistent rumours of knocking off Mary Magdalene 2000 years ago......




Put a bakery and fish shop out of business for a few days.


----------



## wayneL (3 October 2018)

Tisme said:


> Put a bakery and fish shop out of business for a few days.



...and the local  vintner


----------



## Tisme (3 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> ...and the local  vintner




 bakers dozen


----------



## Tisme (3 October 2018)

https://www.theepochtimes.com/senat...rral-for-third-kavanaugh-accuser_2676876.html

"
Senator Bill Cassidy (R-Md.) called for referring Julie Swetnick—who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct—to the FBI and Justice Department (DOJ) for criminal investigation on Oct. 2.

“A criminal referral should be sent to the FBI/DOJ regarding the apparently false affidavit signed by Julie Swetnick that was submitted to the Senate,” Cassidy tweeted....(cont) "


----------



## Aiksas90 (3 October 2018)

Sorry, I did not read all 15 pages on this thread, but I just wanted to add my two cents. 
Regardless of whether he did it or not, whether it can be justified to his youth or his state of inebriation, my main concern is his demeanour during the hearing. He was much too emotional angry and disrespectful to members on the council, his answers were emotional and incoherent at times. A Supreme Judge must be able to deal with difficult situations, remain their composure and treat everyone with respect. Based on the strange replies to simple questions, his ability to objectively hold such a position power is questionable. There are many more conservative judges that might be better suited for the position than Kavanaugh, and the undying support for this particular individual baffles me, especially in light of his recent behaviour. Not the allegations, his actual behaviour which can be seen during the hearing.


----------



## CanOz (3 October 2018)

He came across as I suspect he is, a wining little spoiled Yale wanker....


----------



## Tisme (3 October 2018)

CanOz said:


> He came across as I suspect he is, a wining little spoiled Yale wanker....




I'm not sure we (ASF) should be defending or prosecuting him, but it is a story that has the opportunity to translate into Oz ....it seems to me that whatever the US does we follow like puppy dogs. 

Brett may well strip away women's rights, workers rights, etc and all it takes here is another Abbott to use that as excuse. Similarly if unsubstantiated claims by women are considered fact ....well males are open season.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 October 2018)

CanOz said:


> He came across as I suspect he is, a wining little spoiled Yale wanker....




You got it in one mate. 

gg


----------



## SirRumpole (3 October 2018)

Tisme said:


> Similarly if unsubstantiated claims by women are considered fact ....well males are open season.




That's the point of the FBI investigation I suppose, as abbreviated as it is, to substantiate the allegations or not.


----------



## CanOz (3 October 2018)




----------



## basilio (4 October 2018)

Donald Trump went full frontal on Dr Christine Blasey Ford at his rally last night.
Mocked her senseless.  Got the crowd roaring. Trashed her testimony.
Decried the effect on Brett Kavanaugh life.
"A man's life is in tatters. A man's life is shattered"

And he does this while the FBI is investigating the range of claims and issues surrounding Judge Kavanaughs fitness to be a Supreme Court nominee.

And while in the wings at least three  critical Republicians Party Senators are considering how they will vote on Judge Kavanaugh.

What an epic troll.

*Trump’s mockery of Christine Blasey Ford perpetuates rape culture*
The president just sent survivors the message that their accounts are worthy of ridicule.
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/3/17932024/trump-brett-kavanaugh-christine-ford-julie-swetnick


----------



## basilio (4 October 2018)

* Three key Republicans condemn Trump for mocking Christine Blasey Ford *

Lisa Murkowski calls Trump’s comments ‘wholly inappropriate’

Murkowski, Collins and Flake could decide Kavanaugh’s fate
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/03/donald-trump-republicans-christine-blasey-ford


----------



## luutzu (4 October 2018)

basilio said:


> Donald Trump went full frontal on Dr Christine Blasey Ford at his rally last night.
> Mocked her senseless.  Got the crowd roaring. Trashed her testimony.
> Decried the effect on Brett Kavanaugh life.
> "A man's life is in tatters. A man's life is shattered"
> ...




Trump is suck a azzhole isn't he. 

If a person know anything about the subject matter Trump's one about, they'd either be laughing or just dropping their jaw at the bs that come out of his mouth. 

I mean, we all know he's a pathological liar but man... he just make shiet up like no one was watching or hearing or knowing anything. And somehow he's getting away with it.


----------



## wayneL (4 October 2018)

Ford's testimony is chock full of cavernous holes and is not credible.  If you can't see it was a Democrat fit up... 

Well,  you're a bloody idiot.  Come now Komrades,  surely you can see that deep in your heart of hearts?


----------



## basilio (4 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> Ford's testimony is chock full of cavernous holes and is not credible.  If you can't see it was a Democrat fit up...
> 
> Well,  you're a bloody idiot.  Come now Komrades,  surely you can see that deep in your heart of hearts?



Your totally and utterly delusional  Wayne. 

Dr Christine Blasey Ford never suggested she had a perfect memeory of the night of her assault. She was absolutely clear however that she was assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh and his mate. Why was this  part of her memory so clear ?

*Because this part of the evening was and truly burned into her memory.*  And if you chose to read her response to the questioning she gave an expert witnesses analysis of how that happened.

This event scarred her life. It came up when she and her husband were renovating their home a number of years ago  and she demanded another door be put into the house as an alternative exit. It was at that stage she told him of the assault.
She told her therapist of the assault many years ago. This is on the record.
If you want to look for "cavernous holes in testimony" how about asking if Brett Kavanaugh was the honourable virgin choir boy he claimed he was on oath. Have a look at the number of contemperaries who saw a mean drunk.  
Anyway the issue I raised was Donald Trump using a public rally to mock and belittle Dr Ford.  But he wasn'tmocking her was he Wayne ?

*He was telling any and every other would be woman assault victim to shut-the-xuck-up because we will destroy you. *You won't be believed no matter what you say. And we will make your life hell on earth.  In particular of course there are the 20 odd women who on the record have claimed Donald Trump assaulted them.  Yep they are all liars. 
*
*And he wants the Republician senators to swallow this behaviour and install his own personal sock puppet to the Supreme Court. A Judge who has already followed his masters voice and can be expected to be as partial, as brutal and as dishonest as the President who picked him for the position.

This is where we are going.


----------



## wayneL (4 October 2018)

*You're


----------



## wayneL (4 October 2018)

Bas,  I invite you to read,  listen analyse outside if the Vox/Gaurdian bubble. 

The woman's (and other so called accusers)  is not credible in any sense as evidence.  It's a fit up pure and simple, everybody except you postpodern SJWs admit it,  and he will be sworn in. 

Similarly,  if there is a decent investigation,  several Dems should go to prison.


----------



## wayneL (4 October 2018)

If not,  I nominate God... 

Except, damn,  he got angry once and flooded the joint... well more than once,  poor old Sodam and Gomorrah, just trying to have a bit of LGBTXYZ fun. 

Can't have God, can we.


----------



## CanOz (4 October 2018)

Wayne, your so full of yourself. Even the republicans said she seemed credible. I agree that democrats would have taken advantage of that, but the odds are certainly in her favor as the victim and kav being the pig...perhaps you've been around horses too long mate? I would have thought spotting a horses arse would be easy for you.


----------



## wayneL (4 October 2018)

CanOz said:


> Wayne, your so full of yourself. Even the republicans said she seemed credible. I agree that democrats would have taken advantage of that, but the odds are certainly in her favor as the victim and kav being the pig...perhaps you've been around horses too long mate?



I stand by my comments and I refuse to play the ad hominem game that you arw trying to play canoz.


----------



## luutzu (4 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> Ford's testimony is chock full of cavernous holes and is not credible.  If you can't see it was a Democrat fit up...
> 
> Well,  you're a bloody idiot.  Come now Komrades,  surely you can see that deep in your heart of hearts?




No it's not. I've seen a fair chunk of her testimony. 

His is just full of bs. 

Apparently he might also be in trouble for lying to the Senate about when he heard of the second alleged victim. It's not in the news as he said but a couple of weeks before where he, we're told, call up his pals to say that he didn't do it, alright, wink wink. 

Anyway, this is all a joke. A drunken douche with plenty of evidence about teenage drinking, hard partying is being accused of attempted rape, sexual assault but... but that's all in the past, it's he said she said so let's go ahead and vote to appoint him to the highest court in the land, for life anyway. 

One Senator said no... so alright, the FBI got 1 week and here's the list of who they can talk to. 

You'd think that if they care for truth and justice they'd let the FBI take as long as is needed. Follow the trial where it leads. But nah...


----------



## wayneL (4 October 2018)

Grasshopper, you are relying on your feelings, I am relying on the standard of evidence.

If this was an actual Court she would have been ripped a new one on the stand.

... and deservedly so


----------



## basilio (4 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> Grasshopper, you are relying on your feelings, I am relying on the standard of evidence.
> 
> If this was an actual Court she would have been ripped a new one on the stand.
> 
> ... and deservedly so




Standards of evidence ?  A Courtroom? 

This was not a trial ! Get it ?  It was an open discussion/investigation of a credible accusation of sexual assault. It was also the third accusation of a similar nature and together they go to the heart of Judge Kavanaugh fitness to be a judge.

What also came out in the questions and answers was a judge who refused to co-operate and made claims about his behaviours as a student that just don't stack up with contempory accounts or the evidence of his year book.
At the very  best he misrepresented himself.  A stronger view would be that he lied to make himself look so good it would be impossible to see him as anything other than a choirboy.

Your response to all this is to claim that a University Psychology Professor decided to  fabricate  a sexual assault charge and destroy her life to stop this this nomination.
Versus the other option that she in fact had been assaulted and believed this informtion should be made known to the committee deciding on the fitness of the nominee for being a Supreme Court judge.

And just to finish Wayne.  With regard to the "evidence" presented by Dr Ford and courts of law? There would be a thousand plus men lynched, executed or convicted on a testimony like Dr Fords. And Judge Kavanaughs  refusal to answer would be seen in a completely different light.


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2018)

Aiksas90 said:


> Sorry, I did not read all 15 pages on this thread, but I just wanted to add my two cents.
> Regardless of whether he did it or not, whether it can be justified to his youth or his state of inebriation, my main concern is his demeanour during the hearing. He was much too emotional angry and disrespectful to members on the council, his answers were emotional and incoherent at times. A Supreme Judge must be able to deal with difficult situations, remain their composure and treat everyone with respect. Based on the strange replies to simple questions, his ability to objectively hold such a position power is questionable. There are many more conservative judges that might be better suited for the position than Kavanaugh, and the undying support for this particular individual baffles me, especially in light of his recent behaviour. Not the allegations, his actual behaviour which can be seen during the hearing.



Maybe he just got frustrated, by the trail by media circus, now the FBI have cleared him, it will be trail by those that wanted him found guilty.
The ones with the pitch forks and burning torches, like it.


----------



## basilio (4 October 2018)

The FBI did not take the statements of witnesses who had first hand knowledge of Brett Kavanaughs behaviour as a student.  

*The F.B.I. Probe Ignored Testimonies from Former Classmates of Kavanaugh*
By Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow

October 3, 2018






Several former classmates of Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, tried to share their stories with the F.B.I. as it investigated sexual-assault allegations against him.

Photograph by Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg / Getty
Frustrated potential witnesses who have been unable to speak with the F.B.I agents conducting the investigation into sexual-assault allegations against Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, have been resorting to sending statements, unsolicited, to the Bureau and to senators, in hopes that they would be seen before the inquiry concluded. On Monday, President Trump said that the Bureau should be able to interview “anybody they want within reason,” but the extent of the constraints placed on the investigating agents by the White House remained unclear. Late Wednesday night, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the F.B.I. probe was over and cleared the way for an important procedural vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination to take place on Friday. NBC News reported that dozens of people who said that they had information about Kavanaugh had contacted F.B.I. field offices, but agents had not been permitted to talk to many of them. Several people interested in speaking to the F.B.I. expressed exasperation in interviews with _The New Yorker_ at what they perceived to be a lack of interest in their accounts.

Deborah Ramirez, one of two women who have accused Kavanaugh of sexual abuse, said in an interview that she had been hopeful that her story would be investigated when two agents drove from Denver to Boulder, Colorado, last weekend to interview her at her lawyer’s office. But Ramirez said that she was troubled by what she perceived as a lack of willingness on the part of the Bureau to take steps to substantiate her claims. “I am very alarmed, first, that I was denied an F.B.I. investigation for five days, and then, when one was granted, that it was given on a short timeline and that the people who were key to corroborating my story have not been contacted,” Ramirez said. “I feel like I’m being silenced.”
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates


----------



## wayneL (4 October 2018)

basilio said:


> Standards of evidence ?  A Courtroom?
> 
> This was not a trial ? Get it ?  It was an open discussion/investigation of a credible accusation of sexual assault. It was also the third accusation of a similar nature and together they go to the heart of Judge Kavanaugh fitness to be a judge.
> 
> ...



Err,  English comprehension bas.

I did say *if* it was a courtroom now didn't I.

Nevertheless,  if leftists want to destroy a good man's life,  based on whats amounts to (not even very good) heresay,  on events that purportedly happened 35 years ago, when all were minors at f###ing high school,  I would expect a standard of evidence...

....not a disgraceful witchhunt and *obvious fit up based in nothing more that a particularly purulent iteration of far left politics.

Your posts are sophistry at it absolute words and you and your "komrades" should be utterly ashamed of yourself.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 October 2018)

He'll get through because it's the Repubs last chance to get a Conservative on the SC before the mid term election.

He sounds like an entitled pratt, but he's a buddy of Trump and that counts.


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> He'll get through because it's the Repubs last chance to get a Conservative on the SC before the mid term election.
> 
> He sounds like an entitled pratt, but he's a buddy of Trump and that counts.




I'm not really up on U.S politics or grid iron, but is what you are saying after the mid term elections, the Republicans can't put up another candidate?


----------



## basilio (4 October 2018)

Well it's great that the FBI sent in it's "report" early because all the information from the  witnesses it studiously ignored can now be presented in a public forum.


----------



## luutzu (4 October 2018)

basilio said:


> Well it's great that the FBI sent in it's "report" early because all the information from the  witnesses it studiously ignored can now be presented in a public forum.




Maybe them handing in the report early is a good sign Kavo is cooked.

Given the public outrage, I'd imagine a politically motivated FBI would hang on to the report at the very last moment to appear like they were hard at work on it. 

But then again it's American democracy.


----------



## luutzu (4 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> I'm not really up on U.S politics or grid iron, but is what you are saying after the mid term elections, the Republicans can't put up another candidate?




I think what Rumpole is saying is that if the Republicans wait untl after the mid term in November, they might not have the majority in the Senate to pass any hard right Republican through. Just a softy Republican judge only.


----------



## basilio (4 October 2018)

How many first hand accounts of Judge Kavanaughs pattern of behaviour at college will it take to challenge his choirboy presentation. ?

One, two, Five, Ten ?
*All of Brett Kavanaugh’s Classmates Who Have Accused Him of Lying*
By Amanda Arnold@aMandolinz





In the face of numerous allegations of sexual assault dating back to his high school and college years, all of which are said to have involved copious alcohol use, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has tried to push back on reports that make it seem as though he and his friends were frequently drunk and belligerent, claiming he was a well-behaved boy who simply liked (and still likes!) beer — a characterization that a mounting number of his classmates are calling inaccurate.
https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/all-of-kavanaughs-classmates-who-have-called-him-a-liar.html


----------



## basilio (4 October 2018)

*Brett Kavanaugh’s Former Roommate Describes Their Debauched Dorm at Yale*
https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-roommate-yale-dorm-room.html


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2018)

Jeez basilio, do you know him, you seem really passionate about it?


----------



## luutzu (4 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Jeez basilio, do you know him, you seem really passionate about it?




Empathy, Homer. That and a strong sense of justice and fair play I reckon. Good on you Baz.

Not all of us have the time or interest to look into these "political" issues, but when you take a closer look, or spend a few hours hearing the actual testimony and other witnesses accounts. On top of the bs game these "people's servants" are pulling... If you're not outraged then something is wrong with you.


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> Empathy, Homer. That and a strong sense of justice and fair play I reckon. Good on you Baz.
> 
> Not all of us have the time or interest to look into these "political" issues, but when you take a closer look, or spend a few hours hearing the actual testimony and other witnesses accounts. On top of the bs game these "people's servants" are pulling... If you're not outraged then something is wrong with you.



My appologies, a few hours looking into U.S political issues, I haven't spent a minute looking into it. lol
I was just admiring the passion some have for the it, I guess I'm too apathetic, but I have become more aggressive I'm voting for silly billy. Let's get some real action happening. lol


----------



## luutzu (4 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> My appologies, a few hours looking into U.S political issues, I haven't spent a minute looking into it. lol
> I was just admiring the passion some have for the it, I guess I'm too apathetic, but I have become more aggressive I'm voting for silly billy. Let's get some real action happening. lol




Voting Labor will only get you Liberal-Lite. Want something real, go for the Green or any independents. They got nothing to lose... because they got nothing but bright ideas and not much money, if any, chasing them.

I guess I'm also apathetic, that's a word right? Maybe somewhat cynical as I don't trust any news outlet - too many freaking opinions, not much facts nowadays.

Then just saw a lecture by Ralph Nader and man, the dude made me feel bad about mistaking wisdom for cynicism; about knowing things and not putting it into activism to save the republic. 

Damn it Ralph, couldn't a guy just put his other knowledge towards trying to set up a business to maybe feed and shelter his family first?


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> Voting Labor will only get you Liberal-Lite. Want something real, go for the Green or any independents.



Voting Labor will get some real serious resets happening IMO.
80% of negative geared properties are owned by those earning less than $140k, add to that 40% of housing stock is Sydney and Melbourne, W.A has already had a reset no down side for me. lol

Vote Green, you must be joking, IMO they couldn't run a backyard BBQ let alone the Country.
Just my opinion, but I really haven't seen anyone, that Leigh Sales wouldn't tear strips off.
There is one thing running a nice paid for speal, it is another game running an economy and having to moderate your stance .
Especially when it is so far out of step with reality.


----------



## noirua (5 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> Graham was just applying for Attorney General.
> 
> If he truly believe that Ford is lying and her allegations do not hold up, why have sympathies for her? I'd be pretty pissed off at people who knowingly lie to accuse a good, god fearing, beer-drunk virgin who love coaching football (and the law).




People these days have to be careful not to get into a situation where the media and others cry "Prejudice". So that makes a person either keep quiet as to what they think or basically pretend a person is credible. I find myself having to rearrange my words to keep on the safe side. The times we are going through are right on the one hand, a catchup basis, but quite wrong in that what is said is far from entirely truthful.


----------



## Tisme (5 October 2018)

So predictable :- the FBI is asked (as the beacon of truth and the american way) to investigate the veracity of innuendo and rumour, finds buggerall basis to endorse innuendo and rumour, not even a smoking gun, but the narks are still unsatisfied.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 October 2018)

US Senate votes 51-49 to confirm Kavanaugh.

But its not over yet.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-...loser-to-lifetime-supreme-court-post/10345232


----------



## Tisme (6 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> US Senate votes 51-49 to confirm Kavanaugh.
> 
> But its not over yet.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-...loser-to-lifetime-supreme-court-post/10345232





One thing that has been bugging me is how haggard Ford looked at the hearing. I'm sure her wiley lawyer insisted she look washed out and distressed, but looking like a 70+ women who had spent her life on a beach and croaking like she smoked two packs a day?

but then I saw this and realised she had been dealt that hand naturally:


----------



## SirRumpole (6 October 2018)

It must be emotionally exhausting having the fate of a Supreme Court judge in your hands in opposition to the full weight of the White House evil.


----------



## basilio (6 October 2018)

This is an excellent essay for those who would like to read an indepth analysis from a friend of Judge Kavanaugh as to why he shouldn't be a Supreme Court Judge.

*I Know Brett Kavanaugh, but I Wouldn’t Confirm Him*
This is an article I never imagined myself writing, that I never wanted to write, that I wish I could not write.

 Oct 2, 2018



Benjamin Wittes
Editor in chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings

If I were a senator, I would not vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.

These are words I write with no pleasure, but with deep sadness. Unlike many people who will read them with glee—as validating preexisting political, philosophical, or jurisprudential opposition to Kavanaugh’s nomination—I have no hostility to or particular fear of conservative jurisprudence. I have a long relationship with Kavanaugh, and I have always liked him. I have admired his career on the D.C. Circuit. I have spoken warmly of him. I have published him. I have vouched publicly for his character—more than once—and taken a fair bit of heat for doing so. I have also spent a substantial portion of my adult life defending the proposition that judicial nominees are entitled to a measure of decency from the Senate and that there should be norms of civility within a process that showed Kavanaugh none even before the current allegations arose.

This is an article I never imagined myself writing, that I never wanted to write, that I wish I could not write.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/


----------



## SirRumpole (6 October 2018)

basilio said:


> This is an excellent essay for those who would like to read an indepth analysis from a friend of Judge Kavanaugh as to why he shouldn't be a Supreme Court Judge.




Well I suppose we should ask ourselves how should he behave if

a. he did it
b. he didn't do it.

Yes, judges should be impartial to both parties, and he's too obviously a Republican to do that so the Dems would be crazy to vote for him.

I still have problems with people imposing guilt over what teenagers did in their formative years. 

Neurologists say that the brain is not fully formed at that point, they don't evaluate risk properly and teenagers, both men and women do things that they look back on with shame in later years.

But I have a feeling that he'll get in anyway.


----------



## basilio (6 October 2018)

Rumpy the essay is far more subtle than simply asking if he "did it or didn't do it". It is well worth reading just to get one's head around the ideas of  peoples acceptance of the legitamacy of a judicial system.

Came across a 10 minute clip which also explores these issues. It features a retired conservative judge who expresses his concern about how Judge Kavanaugh came across and the inconsistancies in his respons.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 October 2018)

I did read it bas, it seems very well argued.

So what would you have said in options a. and b. ?


----------



## basilio (6 October 2018)

With reference to the believability of Brett Kavanaughs testimony

_On the other side of the ledger is Kavanaugh’s testimony, and here we cannot be quite so confident that the witness was being candid.

Further reading: Here’s why white women are abandoning the GOP

Kavanaugh’s testimony, whatever one makes of his impassioned claims of innocence on the specific charge, is not credible on the more general issue of his drinking habits. It is, as Kavanaugh suggested at the hearing, absurd for senators to argue with a Supreme Court nominee over his high-school yearbook. Then again, Kavanaugh’s unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious—that his yearbook described a hard-drinking culture that he was a part of and that makes Ford’s account more plausible—made it necessary to do so. Kavanaugh would not concede that the phrase “Beach Week Ralph Club—Biggest Contributor” referred to drinking culture, claiming it was simply a reference to his having a weak stomach. He ascribed implausibly innocent definitions to other terms that appeared in the yearbook. He diminished the casual cruelty he and his friends showed to one girl, Renate Schroeder Dolphin, by describing themselves as “Renate Alumni.” He claimed they intended to show her respect and friendship, but that is not how she reads it three and a half decades later. She told The New York Times, “The insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way.” She is not a fool. His repeated suggestion at the hearing that he had never been so drunk as to have any possibility of memory loss flies in the face of the memories of a number of classmates from college.

My point is not that his confirmation in any sense turns on how much Kavanaugh drank or whether he and his friends made misogynistic jokes as teenagers. But his testimony doesn’t have the ring of truth either. And lack of candor in a witness in one area raises questions about the integrity of that witness’s testimony in other areas.

Thursday evening, after the hearing, former FBI Director James Comey tweeted, “Small lies matter, even about yearbooks. From the standard jury instruction: ‘If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely about any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness’ other testimony and you may reject all the testimony of that witness.’”

Further reading: The pernicious double standards around Kavanaugh’s drinking

...
To be clear, I am emphatically not saying that Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did. The evidence is not within 100 yards of adequate to convict him. But whether he did it is not the question at hand. The question at hand is how a reasonable senator should construct the evidence to guide a binary vote for or against elevation of a judge to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. By my read, we have two witnesses who both profess 100 percent certainty of their position—one whose testimony is wholly credible and marginally corroborated in a number of respects, and the other whose testimony is not credible on a number of important atmospheric points surrounding the alleged event.

It’s not a tie, and it doesn’t go to the nominee.

Read Caitlin Flanagan on Christine Blasey Ford: “I believe her.”

There’s one more reason I could not vote to confirm Kavanaugh: His apparent lack of candor on the culture of drinking at Georgetown Prep and later is a problem of its own, quite apart from what it may indicate about the truth of Ford’s story. People throw around words like perjury too blithely. I won’t do so here. I will say that I do not believe he showed the sort of candor that warrants the Senate’s—or the public’s—confidence. To the extent some commentators on the right are defending Kavanaugh’s testimony as containing the sort of white lies that anyone might tell under the circumstances, let me just say that I don’t believe that Supreme Court justices get to tell self-exculpating white lies—and I don’t believe in white lies from anyone else, either, in sworn congressional testimony.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/

_


----------



## Knobby22 (7 October 2018)

Basilio
The writer is desiring the ideals of the High court. 
Kavanaugh is a Republican insider married to another Republican insider. He can be trusted to act on their interest. 

The founders had idealism. We now have powerful interest groups and base politics.
That is just the way it works. People voted to take away healthcare for the poor and give the wealthiest a tax cut. 

It is a Democracy but most people don't vote. 
They get what they deserve.


----------



## dutchie (7 October 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> It is a Democracy but most people don't vote.
> They get what they deserve.



That's true of all democracy's around the world (Australia, UK, Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands etc etc)


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2018)

Due process prevails over political hit jobs and baying mobs with no evidence. 

It is a good day today.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> Due process prevails over political hit jobs and baying mobs with no evidence.
> 
> It is a good day today.




Nah, he's still a biased pratt. He shouldn't have got in but the attack on him for what happened 40 years ago was OTT.


----------



## basilio (7 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Nah, he's still a biased pratt. He shouldn't have got in but the attack on him for what happened 40 years ago was OTT.




He shouldn't have been approved because of 
1) The lies he gave to the Senate about his behavior as a High school/College student
2) The way he behaved in the Senate hearing.  He is supposed to be an impartial Supreme Court Judge not a ranting partisian Trump sock puppet.


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Basilio
> The writer is desiring the ideals of the High court.
> Kavanaugh is a Republican insider married to another Republican insider. He can be trusted to act on their interest.
> 
> ...




People voted before, but they still don't get what they deserve. So they stopped voting. 

It's all a sham really. More like a public subsidy for media corporations every two years, one big one every four.


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> Due process prevails over political hit jobs and baying mobs with no evidence.
> 
> It is a good day today.




If you scan through the papers, you'll see that the FBI investigation is anything but "due process". 

What kind of an investigation does not get permission from the White House [its boss] to ask the accused and the accuser? 

So Dr Ford accused Kavanaugh of attempted rape. The WH figured they've said enough so no need to talk to them? What a joke.


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

Tisme said:


> One thing that has been bugging me is how haggard Ford looked at the hearing. I'm sure her wiley lawyer insisted she look washed out and distressed, but looking like a 70+ women who had spent her life on a beach and croaking like she smoked two packs a day?
> 
> but then I saw this and realised she had been dealt that hand naturally:
> 
> View attachment 89624




"Too ugly to rape" now is it?

What's wrong with you people?


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2018)

I had to laugh at reports that Ford won't pursue allgations further.

A. Statute of limitations 

B.  Absolutely zero evidence

C.  Is already in imminent peril of being charged with perjury,  and facing a civil defamation case. 

She should just slink off into deserved obscurity now that the dems will have dumped her like a cheap rag.


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> I had to laugh at reports that Ford won't pursue allgations further.
> 
> A. Statute of limitations
> 
> ...




You think she's doing all this because she want the Democrats to win or because she's aligned with the Democrats?

Get real. 

If you're from a family that send their kids to those elite schools. If you're part of the political or economic elite, all these partisan rubbish is just that... rubbish.

Just look at the Clintons. Their daughter is best friend with the Trump's. They attend each other's weddings. 

It's a joke that a guy like Kavanaugh sits on the Supreme Court. Well, it is if you believe in such thing as justice and democracy, independent branches of government and all that bs.

There are Senators publicly condemning protesters loitering around Senate offices like it's their rights to confront their "representatives". What's all these bs, "mob rule"? "Grow up" and get a job or go to prison. Get off our lawn, let us wise elders decide what's good for everyone.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> You think she's doing all this because she want the Democrats to win or because she's aligned with the Democrats?




Did you ever stop to ask yourself why she waited 35 years to make these allegations ?

If there were witnesses their minds would have fresh at the time it happened and the chances of conviction would be much higher.

It appears to be a grandstanding exercise.


----------



## basilio (7 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> I had to laugh at reports that Ford won't pursue allgations further.
> 
> A. Statute of limitations
> 
> ...




You are such a cheap, nasty little toe rag Wayne. Dr Ford brought up the incident with Judge Kavanaugh to give the Senate important knowledge of the person they were going to appoint as  Supreme Court Justice for life.

*No one was going to take this to a court case. Ever. *
She had never intended to take this to the police for all the obvious reasons  so far demonstrated

She deserves admiration and respect for the guts she showed to stand and say what happened to her.
The Trump sock puppet that is Brett Kavanaugh will still be regarded as a casual liar for the way he denied his behaviour as a drunken teenager. But that is the Trump way isn't it ?


----------



## SirRumpole (7 October 2018)

basilio said:


> Dr Ford brought up the incident with Judge Kavanaugh to give the Senate important knowledge of the person they were going to appoint as Supreme Court Justice for life.




You don't think that people can change over time ?


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Did you ever stop to ask yourself why she waited 35 years to make these allegations ?
> 
> If there were witnesses their minds would have fresh at the time it happened and the chances of conviction would be much higher.
> 
> It appears to be a grandstanding exercise.




She made it after all these years because it took the douche all these years to climb this high. Like she said, she saw it as her "civic duty" to come forward. She also knew too that what she said wouldn't matter either way because the politicians and the press already have him as their preferred douche on the bench.

As to allegation she made privately... she have told friends over the years. She told her therapist a few years ago, went to marriage counselling. 

There are evidence, people who corroborate. So it's not a total lie, mistaken identity, or some partisan mud slinging. Heck, she passes the polygraph test. She invited the FBI to interview her, talk to people. 

Did Kavanaugh do any of that? Did he invite the FBI to investigate? Did he talk to them? Do a polygraph?

Just by watching a few clips of his responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee and you can tell he's a lying prick. 

But ey, he was "a little too emotional", he said to the WSJ. 

That's like Reuters saying he allegedly "exposes himself" to the other lady. Yah, taking your penis out, whack it on a drunken lady's face without her consent is "exposing" yourself.

America is fast becoming a Third World banana republic in more ways than one.

This Kavanaugh shietshow is just the latest example of the decay.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> She made it after all these years because it took the douche all these years to climb this high.




You don't get to the Supreme Court unless you have been a junior judge for a number of years, so there he was sitting on cases maybe including rape and potentially making biased judgements in favour of defendants. The "civic duty" should have cut in years ago.

Anyway I don't really care about him personally I just don't like people held responsible forever for making gooses of themselves as teenagers when we all know that that period is high on risk taking and low on judgement.

Anyway they are racing again at Bathurst so bye for now.


----------



## dutchie (7 October 2018)

Trump is draining the Swamp.


----------



## Tink (7 October 2018)




----------



## wayneL (7 October 2018)

basilio said:


> You are such a cheap, nasty little toe rag Wayne. Dr Ford brought up the incident with Judge Kavanaugh to give the Senate important knowledge of the person they were going to appoint as  Supreme Court Justice for life.
> 
> *No one was going to take this to a court case. Ever. *
> She had never intended to take this to the police for all the obvious reasons  so far demonstrated
> ...



1. Once again you reach straight for the name calling bas. As I am none of those descriptors, it just made me have a giggle at your expense. 

2. Of course it was never going to court for the reasons I outlined.  Can you not read?  The amusing thing is the msm inference that it could do, in order to perpetuate the left's infected narrative. 

3. (also for orher grasshoppers) If you do not realise Ford's political affiliation and activism... If you cannot (or more likely refuse to) see, in conjunction with the other laughable accusations, the poisonous agenda here,  then you cannot be helped. 

Due process,  evidence,  integrity... You should acquaint yourself of these foundations of our system ans why they are in place to avoid the Stalinism you appear to desire.


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> You don't get to the Supreme Court unless you have been a junior judge for a number of years, so there he was sitting on cases maybe including rape and potentially making biased judgements in favour of defendants. The "civic duty" should have cut in years ago.
> 
> Anyway I don't really care about him personally I just don't like people held responsible forever for making gooses of themselves as teenagers when we all know that that period is high on risk taking and low on judgement.
> 
> Anyway they are racing again at Bathurst so bye for now.




Maybe she didn't follow his career until it hit the headlines. How many of us heard of this guy until he was nominated to the Supreme Court?

Anyway, people have their reasons for keeping silent or coming out. They shouldn't be blamed or condemned for that decision. 

What's more important is whether what they alleged are true or not. 

Here we have at least two credible victim of sexual assault but the people who designed the investigation and its scope is the same group who wanted to find the accused innocent anyway. 

Until now, I didn't know that that's even possible in a democracy. Heck, I thought that once the FBI is called in, they take over the investigation and follow the facts. 

Here, they follow the scope set for them. Big surprise then that they came back with inconclusive or whatever because no one but the Senator themselves get to read the report.

----------

Attempted rape is not "making gooses" of themselves. It's a serious crime. 

Plenty of people goes to prison on much lesser "crime"... like carrying weed, not having a few hundreds in time to pay for bail, looking at a cop funny while being black, brown or foreign.


----------



## moXJO (7 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> She made it after all these years because it took the douche all these years to climb this high. Like she said, she saw it as her "civic duty" to come forward. She also knew too that what she said wouldn't matter either way because the politicians and the press already have him as their preferred douche on the bench.
> 
> As to allegation she made privately... she have told friends over the years. She told her therapist a few years ago, went to marriage counselling.
> 
> ...



Ford did not mention Kavanaugh by name in the therapists notes. Her husband "heard" his name mentioned... Yeah right.

No corroboration or straight denials from any of her witnesses.

Her story changed.

Her ex boyfriend of 6 years said she coached her friend to take a polygraph test for the fbi.
Also that she didn't have a fear of flying and never mentioned being assaulted.
If this is looked into, it might prove she committed perjury.
Not a peep out of her family except to say she threw a sick friend under the bus.

Not a scrap of evidence.
Here is gops prosecutors report because I noticed  fake news before.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/389821761/content#from_embed


> Here are some of Mitchell’s bullet points on Ford’s failed testimony:
> 
> 
> Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened
> ...






The other accusations are even less credible.

He may well have been a sht person, but hang him on evidence.

The reason why this whole mess started is that he is a conservative and will vote against progressives laws.


This was a hit job and played out as expected.

Its opened up the midterms now though. I was 100% sure dems would take the win. Now I'm 50/50 on the whole thing.


----------



## IFocus (7 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> Due process prevails over political hit jobs and baying mobs with no evidence.
> 
> It is a good day today.




It's not a due process its a political one hence the mess.

Was it a good when the Republicans failed to follow your "due process" and delayed Obama's pick?


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> 1. Once again you reach straight for the name calling bas. As I am none of those descriptors, it just made me have a giggle at your expense.
> 
> 2. Of course it was never going to court for the reasons I outlined.  Can you not read?  The amusing thing is the msm inference that it could do, in order to perpetuate the left's infected narrative.
> 
> ...




Just heard again that turtle Mitch McConnell calling protesters confronting their representatives a collapse into "mob rule". And I am guessing he and his friends put up a strong fight for freedom or some shiet.

Know who else refer to the plebs and their democracy "mob rule"? Hitler.

What are Dr Ford's political affiliation?  She's not a Republican so she must be a Democrats? She wrote a few papers on the morning after drug and Kavo will overturn women's reproductive rights so that will eat into her income from more papers about it?

Due process, evidence, presumed innocence. Yeah, let's have some of that. 

Designing the scope of the investigation. Sending a list of who to interview. Giving a deadline. Not permitting the interviewing of the accused and the accuser. Not returning calls or replying to witnesses who reach out to confirm what the accusers have alleged. 

Sure, "due process". Nothing to see. 

Good luck with anyone else ever coming forward, sacrificing their own privacy or freedom to fight for justice and fairness. 

You know what other places you cannot accuse or speak ill of the elite? Try Vietnam or China. 
-------------

As to this committee not being a court blah blah... So it's a job interview right?

An impartial bunch of wise elders working on behalf of the people would appoint a person like Kavanaugh to a lifetime position on the highest "third branch" of government when he clearly lie under oath; obviously partisan; have at least two credible accuser. 

You'd joke about these kind of appointment if the CEO appoint his idiot son to senior management. But this is supposed to be a democracy and all that justice stuff right?


----------



## SirRumpole (7 October 2018)

Should they (we) have elected judges ?

Would it be a better system ?

Lifetime appointments seems pretty cr@p too.


----------



## bellenuit (7 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> You don't think that people can change over time ?




Yes, but discarding completely the veracity of the allegations, his response at the hearings should have been sufficient grounds not to appoint him. His temperament and partisanship indicated that he was completely unsuited to the job.


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

moXJO said:


> Ford did not mention Kavanaugh by name in the therapists notes. Her husband "heard" his name mentioned... Yeah right.
> 
> No corroboration or straight denials from any of her witnesses.
> 
> ...




Kavanaugh was mentioned by name in Dr Ford's therapist's notes. 

To say it's not is just a Trumpian kind of spin. Like the one he gave at rallies. If you watch independent news and the testimony, you can clearly see the bs.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 October 2018)

bellenuit said:


> His temperament and partisanship indicated that he was completely unsuited to the job.




Yes, very true.


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

moXJO said:


> Ford did not mention Kavanaugh by name in the therapists notes. Her husband "heard" his name mentioned... Yeah right.
> 
> No corroboration or straight denials from any of her witnesses.
> 
> ...




How did she "coached" her ex-bf on the polygraph? Using mind control because she's a psychologist?

How do you supposed to look at evidence when you do not permit investigators to gather them? 

In cases such as these, what kind of evidence are you hoping to see? Video tape of the incident? Or a confession by the other guy alleged to also be in the room?

Anyway, holding these political theatre to some standard of fairness is asking to be disappointed.


----------



## moXJO (7 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> Kavanaugh was mentioned by name in Dr Ford's therapist's notes.
> 
> To say it's not is just a Trumpian kind of spin. Like the one he gave at rallies. If you watch independent news and the testimony, you can clearly see the bs.



Link


----------



## SirRumpole (7 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> How did she "coached" her ex-bf on the polygraph? Using mind control because she's a psychologist?




Polygraphs are unreliable that's why they are not used in court.

If you can reduce your stress levels by actually believing a lie then you will pass a polygraph.

Not saying that's what happened, but it's possible.


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Polygraphs are unreliable that's why they are not used in court.
> 
> If you can reduce your stress levels by actually believing a lie then you will pass a polygraph.
> 
> Not saying that's what happened, but it's possible.




I know it's very possible to beat a polygraph test. But it's also possible that you can't. 

That's why choir boy virgin who likes "beer" there refuse to take the polygraph or invite the FBI to investigate his innocence.


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

moXJO said:


> Link




You got google and the internet right? Australia have yet to implement net non-neutrality.


----------



## moXJO (7 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> How did she "coached" her ex-bf on the polygraph? Using mind control because she's a psychologist?
> 
> How do you supposed to look at evidence when you do not permit investigators to gather them?
> 
> ...



Its not that hard to pass lie detector tests once trained.
Thats why they are not used as undeniable proof. 

Even if you're not trained you can throw the results easily. One of the easiest was put a tack in your shoe.
The harder methods invole re-imaging the question to suit the answer.

Proof
Who drove her.
One witness that can verify that there even was a party.
Surely she would have told someone prior.


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

moXJO said:


> Its not that hard to pass lie detector tests once trained.
> Thats why they are not used as undeniable proof.
> 
> Even if you're not trained you can throw the results easily. One of the easiest was put a tack in your shoe.
> ...




Of the two parties, one invited the FBI to investigate, the other mmms, ahhsss... nah, go screw yourself Senators. 

One passed the polygraph, the other didn't take it because it help prove his innocence to not take one.

One's a known drunk, high profile lawyer and political operative who clearly bs when questioned mildly by democrats pretending to be tough on him. 

But sure, it's he said she said.

Kavanaugh's own diary had him circled in parties with the very people Dr Ford named was at the party. 

But alright, he's a choir boy who likes beer. But only likes it after he work his butt off at school, and after a few sessions at the gym. All work and no play makes Brett an elite self-entitled azzhole instead of a normal everyday kid who likes average, everyday beer and weekend get together with friends.


----------



## moXJO (7 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> You got google and the internet right? Australia have yet to implement net non-neutrality.



Yeah I  do. Do you? 



> Did you show a full or partial set of those marriage therapy records to the Washington Post?" asked Mitchell.
> 
> "I don't remember," said Ford. "I remember summarizing for her [the Post reporter] what they said. So I'm not — I'm not quite sure if I actually gave her the record."
> 
> ...


----------



## basilio (7 October 2018)

Why wasn't there a proper investigation  for  corrobarative evidence regarding Dr Fords allegations?  I don't mean a four days "close my eyes and cross my fingers" Claytons look.  

Prosecutors and investigators have the tools and experience to  find and convict people of historical  crimes and  also exonerate them. It can be done. It is done all the time. Check this story out to understand what can be done.  I would expect Judge Kavanaugh to order a full and complete investigation to clear his precious name....

*Don’t Pretend the Kavanaugh Facts are Unknowable*
Lawyers make a living figuring out, methodically, who did what, when, where, how, and to whom.

 Sep 28, 2018
Caleb Mason
Litigator and former federal prosecutor





Rachel Mitchell questions Christine Blasey FordTom Williams / Reuters

The strangest thing to me about Thursday’s Judiciary Committee hearing was that the veteran prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, retained by the Republicans to cross-examine Christine Blasey Ford, didn’t already have, and seemed uninterested in obtaining, a crucial piece of evidence that Ford referred to in her testimony.

Ford does not recall precisely what date Brett Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her, but she testified that approximately six weeks afterward she saw Mark Judge—who she claims was in the room during the assault—working at the Potomac Village Safeway. “If we could find out when he worked there, then I could provide a more detailed timeline,” Ford said. That would be an important fact, indeed.

Mitchell has been prosecuting sexual-assault cases for two decades. She knows how to use determinable contextual facts to nail down a precise chronology about a witness’s narrative. The facts surrounding Judge’s employment at Safeway are objective, documented, and readily ascertainable, and would provide a definitive date range for the assault. So why doesn’t the committee figure out those facts? The committee could easily subpoena Safeway for Judge’s employment records, or subpoena Judge himself. If Mitchell were prosecuting this case in Arizona, that’s the first thing she would do. Did she suggest to Senator Chuck Grassley that he issue a subpoena to Safeway?

 
I’m a trial lawyer. I used to be a federal prosecutor, and now I do civil litigation and criminal defense. I spend my time trying to use the investigative and fact-finding tools of the legal system to resolve problems for people and companies that get in disputes. Every one of those disputes involves contested versions of particular events that happened years in the past. I, and thousands of others in my profession, make our living figuring out, methodically, who did what, when, where, how, and to whom, in cases where accounts are disputed, memories have faded, records have been lost, and witnesses don’t want to cooperate. And we do it in adversarial proceedings in which each factual assertion must be sourced, cited, and proved with evidence and testimony.

There’s nothing arcane or even particularly difficult about the investigatory steps the government could take to reach a reasonable factual conclusion about the Kavanaugh allegations. I simply cannot understand why the Judiciary Committee refuses to use the resources it has—namely, subpoena power, through which the committee can compel witnesses to testify and produce documents.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/did-ford-tell-truth-committee-can-find-out/571603/


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2018)

This reminds me of 2016


----------



## SirRumpole (7 October 2018)

Even if they prove he did it, they still have to impeach him to get him out.

Won't be easy.


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2018)




----------



## Tisme (7 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> "Too ugly to rape" now is it?
> 
> What's wrong with you people?




No I thought she had been made up to look haggard, but I was wrong...if you want to suggest she was too ugly to be of interest to a male that's your baggage not mine.


----------



## explod (7 October 2018)

explod said:


> Goodness, she's reading her script, using a croaky voice to intimate mental impacts.  From my professional experience appears to be lying through her teeth.  I'm no right winger but can see the Clinton Illuminati all over this.
> 
> And when it happened they were kids and no real evidence that Kavanaugh was even there.
> 
> US absolutely corrupt and stuffed.  Just party and save somer silver coins.



Rest My case, nothing has changed since my post on the 28th.

Its all political maneuvering.

Those sucked into threads like this just indicate shallow understanding of life IMHO.


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

moXJO said:


> Yeah I  do. Do you?




How did that show Kavanaugh's name wasn't mentioned in the therapist's notes?

Which note? The one mentioned to the reporter or all notes from all therapy sessions?

Apparently, if the FBI were permitted to interview Ford by the WH/GOP, her lawyers will make available all the therapist notes.

Since they didn't get to see it, it'll have to be a she said that, her husband corroborated it but then the honorable Judge said something else. Who are we going to believe, right?

and btw, it wasn't her ex-bf that Dr Ford "coached". He accused her of coaching a friend to pass the polygraph. The friend made a statement that that is not the case.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> Since they didn't get to see it, it'll have to be a she said that, her husband corroborated it but then the honorable Judge said something else. Who are we going to believe, right?




You sound like another bas.

All het up about something that doesn't affect us a bit.

Waste of time really.


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

Tisme said:


> No I thought she had been made up to look haggard, but I was wrong...if you want to suggest she was too ugly to be of interest to a male that's your baggage not mine.




Yea, nice try. 

We've heard one of these favourite dog whistles haven't we? 

Why would a handsome, great man such as I ever rape or sexually assaulted that woman. Just look at her.


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> You sound like another bas.
> 
> All het up about something that doesn't affect us a bit.
> 
> Waste of time really.




Lots of things doesn't affect me. Lots of things doesn't affect most people. 

Sometime you just have time to not take bs from anybody.


----------



## Tisme (7 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> Yea, nice try.
> 
> We've heard one of these favourite dog whistles haven't we?
> 
> Why would a handsome, great man such as I ever rape or sexually assaulted that woman. Just look at her.




Mate you're off course and being guided by your own bias. You and I are not qualified to identify, let alone apportion guilt to heresay rapists. Have you bothered to look at how she looks when outside the hearings wearing her daily work face?

For some reason you seem all too willing to be part of a lynch mob without knowing the facts ... leave that to people like Bas and hope you never end up accused of anything lest she try the case in the court of petticoats and mass hysteria.


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

explod said:


> Rest My case, nothing has changed since my post on the 28th.
> 
> Its all political maneuvering.
> 
> Those sucked into threads like this just indicate shallow understanding of life IMHO.




Depends on what you mean by understanding of "life" there.

If you mean thinking that justice could be brought against rich powerful people with richer, more powerful friends... yea, just a waste of time and not really knowing how to world works. 

But I'm sure you mean being naive, not recognising it's possible for people to lie, deceive for political or personal gain... I don't think that's true at all.

Firstly, I don't remember any of us suckers saying that Kavanaugh is guilty because Dr Ford alleged it. All that was asked after a credible accusation was for the FBI to look into it. 

Apparently they "looked" and talk to people after one Senator said he wouldn't vote for Kavo boy without an FBI report. 

I guess he didn't specify what kind of report, and what scope of the investigation is limited to. 

So now we got a report. Who gets to see it? Only wise people who definitely are not partisan or political. 

----------

As to understanding life, knowing how deprave some people, and some women, could be... trust me, I have seenmu share of it and it still shock me.

I know a guy who got properly trapped, then threatened, then got booked, go to court to answer an alleged rape accusation. 

He came out of it losing half of everything he ever had. And lucky he didn't also go to prison.

The guy got taken so bad he was literally penniless he couldn't afford a lawyer when his ex got her lawyer to demand half of a house he bought in his name, that he alone have been paying for ("for them"), half of his super, half of his business and both his balls.

So yea, people can be nasty pieces of work. To assume they all are, to design hearings and investigation where reports are kept hidden and secret; where it's not legally false to say there's no evidence... that's just justice. That's just politics. The kind most don't expect from an open democracy with equal justice for all and all that.


----------



## explod (7 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> Depends on what you mean by understanding of "life" there.
> 
> If you mean thinking that justice could be brought against rich powerful people with richer, more powerful friends... yea, just a waste of time and not really knowing how to world works.
> 
> ...



Yep. been through all of that personally.   Alone now with ziltch.   But I'm only a pup at 73, what would I know.


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

Tisme said:


> Mate you're off course and being guided by your own bias. You and I are not qualified to identify, let alone apportion guilt to heresay rapists. Have you bothered to look at how she looks when outside the hearings wearing her daily work face?
> 
> For some reason you seem all too willing to be part of a lynch mob without knowing the facts ... leave that to people like Bas and hope you never end up accused of anything lest she try the case in the court of petticoats and mass hysteria.




For some reason, the statistics show that about 93% of rape accusation turn out true. 

So if I'm ever accused of rape, I probably did it. The only thing that would clear my name would be a thorough independent investigation where I'm interviewed, my accuser got her say, investigators take all the time they need following her evidence.

The only lynch mob in this case are those well-dressed old men representing the people.


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

explod said:


> Yep. been through all of that personally.   Alone now with ziltch.   But I'm only a pup at 73, what would I know.




I'm sure that with your professional background and life experience, you can spot a lie just by looking at it.

So maybe Dr. Ford completely made it all up to get back at Kavanaugh etc. 

But you can't say that Kavanaugh look and sound completely innocent either.

And I'm no detective but this FBI investigation is more a political move to provide cover than a proper investigation. 

For one thing, shouldn't the people who wanted Kavanaugh's named cleared and be promoted not also be the ones designing the scope and witness list?


----------



## explod (7 October 2018)

For goodness sake they were little more than upper wild teenage kids.

Time to move on.

And the US is rotten to the core in so many directions (and all sides of politics), as a youngster witnessed their interference in an internal revolution within Vietnam and they bombed innocents with napalm.  Will never forget the raw suffering.  For 40 years have been underhandedly attacking Syria and many other countries to control oil, and one can go on.  Lol, and under the banner of freedom and democracy and the eyes of God;  FF sake


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

explod said:


> For goodness sake they were little more than upper wild teenage kids.
> 
> Time to move on.
> 
> And the US is rotten to the core in so many directions (and all sides of politics), as a youngster witnessed their interference in an internal revolution within Vietnam and they bombed innocents with napalm.  Will never forget the raw suffering.  For 40 years have been underhandedly attacking Syria and many other countries to control oil, and one can go on.  Lol, and under the banner of freedom and democracy and the eyes of God;  FF sake




In that context. Yes, this just petty.


----------



## basilio (7 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> In that context. Yes, this just petty.




I don't think this is petty.

The issues in this case are fundamental to the operation of a justice system in the US that can in any way be seen as fair and balanced.
The appointment of Judge Kavanaugh was seen as  major mistake  by many independent and hitherto conservative bodies . These included conservative judges, the US  bar council, a major Catholic lobby body, thousands of University Law Professors. Check out the story below for details

The issues that concerned them were:
-the behaviour of Judge Kavanaugh in his defense,
-the partisianship he was demonstrating when he is looking to be an impartial Supreme Court apointee,
-the concern about his denials of  teenage/college behaviour which are easily demonstrated to be false
-concern that the testimony of Dr Ford had sufficient credibilty to disqualify him from the position.

All of these issues were clear to the Senators who nonetheless decided to close their eyes, hold their nose and get a guaranteed  constructivist judge as the swing guy for the next 30 years.

Earlier on I left an article  from The Atlantic that went into much detail on all of these realities.

In a very short period of time the forces behind formally overturning the Wade vs Roe abortion issue will open a case. This is one of the "prizes" at stake - criminalising a womens right to make decisions on her pregnancy. And Judge Kavanaugh, with the questions on his behaviour to women,  will be the decisive factor in this judgement.

https://theintercept.com/2018/10/05...ssors-and-conservatives-even-his-own-friends/


----------



## basilio (7 October 2018)

What happened the last time the  US Supreme Court become a constructivist body ? Check  out this piece of history.

*The Supreme Court Is Headed Back to the 19th Century*
The justices again appear poised to pursue a purely theoretical liberty at the expense of the lives of people of color.

When the Louisiana State Militia finally arrived at the Colfax courthouse on April 15, 1873, all it could do was bury the bodies. Two days earlier, a large force of white supremacists had taken control of the courthouse from the mostly black faction protecting it. J. R. Beckwith, the U.S. attorney for New Orleans, told Congress that in the aftermath the ground was “strewn with dead negroes,” their bodies plundered by whites who had come to watch the bloodshed. The dead remained “unburied and mutilated,” Beckwith said, until federal troops arrived days later to shovel them into a mass grave.

“Not a single negro had been killed until all of them had surrendered to the whites who were fighting with them,” _The_ _New York Times _reported at the time, “when over 100 of the unfortunate negroes were shot down in cold blood.” Some were killed as they tried to surrender, and others as they attempted to flee the courthouse, which had been set on fire. President Ulysses S. Grant called the Colfax massacre a “butchery” that “in bloodthirstiness and barbarity is hardly surpassed by any acts of savage warfare.”

* Related Stories *





Kavanaugh’s Fate Will Have a Massive Ripple Effect
Brett Kavanaugh Discovers the Unfairness of the World
Don’t Pretend the Kavanaugh Facts are Unknowable
Many white Southerners saw it differently. Robert Hunter, the editor of _The Caucasian_, a Louisiana newspaper, told Congress in 1875 that some of his own staffers had participated in the massacre. “I approved it, as most of our people did,” Hunter testified. “Had not the Colfax affair ended as it did, not less than a thousand niggers would have been killed later.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/redemption-court/566963/


----------



## luutzu (7 October 2018)

basilio said:


> I don't think this is petty.
> 
> The issues in this case are fundamental to the operation of a justice system in the US that can in any way be seen as fair and balanced.
> The appointment of Judge Kavanaugh was seen as  major mistake  by many independent and hitherto conservative bodies . These included conservative judges, the US  bar council, a major Catholic lobby body, thousands of University Law Professors. Check out the story below for details
> ...




I didn't mean to say it's petty in that sense.

Was agreeing with explod that in the context of imperial wars massacring millions a pop; sanctions that starve and kill hundreds of thousands; overthrowing government, funding terrorist/freedom fighters in "civil wars" etc... 

In that context, the attempted rape of one person; the screwing around with "due process" and a sham of an "independent judiciary"... It is of course bad and have massive consequences, but it's small stuff compare to the crap that's been done by the same group of people.


----------



## explod (7 October 2018)

basilio said:


> I don't think this is petty.
> 
> The issues in this case are fundamental to the operation of a justice system in the US that can in any way be seen as fair and balanced.
> The appointment of Judge Kavanaugh was seen as  major mistake  by many independent and hitherto conservative bodies . These included conservative judges, the US  bar council, a major Catholic lobby body, thousands of University Law Professors. Check out the story below for details
> ...




It has not been fair or balanced since the 1930's in the US

But agree, no incident of assault is minor but in this take there are no points of proof (that would stand up in a court) evidence that it occurred,

Read J Edgar Hoover and his control of six Presidents.  If you can't get it Bas I can lend it to you.  It'l blow your head in on the seppos.


----------



## moXJO (7 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> How did that show Kavanaugh's name wasn't mentioned in the therapist's notes?
> 
> Which note? The one mentioned to the reporter or all notes from all therapy sessions?
> 
> ...




I didn't say the bf was coached.
Check again.

Ford said that Kavanaugh name wasn't in the notes during the hearing.

I  asked you for a link about your allegations and you came back with smoke.

I give you info from the horses mouth and you cry foul.


----------



## moXJO (8 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> For some reason, the statistics show that about 93% of rape accusation turn out true.



What study does that number come from?


----------



## luutzu (8 October 2018)

moXJO said:


> I didn't say the bf was coached.
> Check again.
> 
> Ford said that Kavanaugh name wasn't in the notes during the hearing.
> ...




No, the question asked refers to the notes Dr Ford showed or summarised to the reporter.

Her answer of his name not being on it could refer to that note alone, not to all her therapist's notes. 

So if the Senators or the FBI care to find out and get to the bottom of that particular line of questioning, maybe go talk to Dr. Ford; go talk to the Therapist; go review all the notes; go speak to friends Dr Ford had spoke to about. etc. etc.


----------



## luutzu (8 October 2018)

moXJO said:


> What study does that number come from?




I'll look it up. Heard it from an interview in a news segment - Democracy Now I think it was.


----------



## luutzu (8 October 2018)

moXJO said:


> What study does that number come from?





False reporting found to be between 2 and 10%... 

Also in the paper, 63% of sexual assault victims never report to the police.

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf


----------



## Tisme (8 October 2018)

explod said:


> For goodness sake they were little more than upper wild teenage kids.
> 
> Time to move on.
> 
> And the US is rotten to the core in so many directions (and all sides of politics), as a youngster witnessed their interference in an internal revolution within Vietnam and they bombed innocents with napalm.  Will never forget the raw suffering.  For 40 years have been underhandedly attacking Syria and many other countries to control oil, and one can go on.  Lol, and under the banner of freedom and democracy and the eyes of God;  FF sake




Spent lotsa time in USA. The locals are so judgemental  they go looking for something to to get overwrought about. The sixties protest years still has a residual effect. They are also congenital liars, convinced they have God on their side.


----------



## luutzu (8 October 2018)

moXJO said:


> I didn't say the bf was coached.
> Check again....




True, I misread. 

Her friend still made a statement, sent to the Senate, saying she was never coached etc. etc. right?

Anyway, I didn't read everything. Just read enough to know that if virgin boy Brett there wouldn't be hired at my imperial court of justice. But that's just me being a fair and learned emperor. 

Being a business stooge with profit to be made, clocks to set back, mobs to quiet and women to be put in their place... yea, I'll hire him pretending he's Justice Pao sent to Tang China by the Jade Emperor Himself.


----------



## moXJO (8 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> False reporting found to be between 2 and 10%...
> 
> Also in the paper, 63% of sexual assault victims never report to the police.
> 
> ...



This figure is used a lot, but its been shown to be flawed. 
Eugene Kanin found a 40 percent false-report rate. But his was flawed as well. 

The truth is we don't really know. It could be lower or higher.
Its also allegations made to police. Not bosses, university, senate inquiries etc

If you look at the current mess in family court you would see the amount of false allegations of abuse though. It happens more then is let on.



luutzu said:


> No, the question asked refers to the notes Dr Ford showed or summarised to the reporter.
> 
> Her answer of his name not being on it could refer to that note alone, not to all her therapist's notes.
> 
> So if the Senators or the FBI care to find out and get to the bottom of that particular line of questioning, maybe go talk to Dr. Ford; go talk to the Therapist; go review all the notes; go speak to friends Dr Ford had spoke to about. etc. etc.



Do you not think every note wasn't scoured over endlessly?
They had literally everyone looking for evidence. If it existed it would have sunk Kavanaugh. 

No, if it were there it would have been public day 1.



luutzu said:


> Anyway, I didn't read everything. Just read enough to know that if virgin boy Brett there wouldn't be hired at my imperial court of justice. But that's just me being a fair and learned emperor.




I wouldn’t hire him. But lets face it, how many clean hands are at that level. You gotta step over some bodies to get to emperor you know. 

 But I wouldn’t string him up in a kangaroo court either....
There just isn't enough evidence. He could be mr clean.


----------



## luutzu (8 October 2018)

moXJO said:


> This figure is used a lot, but its been shown to be flawed.
> Eugene Kanin found a 40 percent false-report rate. But his was flawed as well.
> 
> The truth is we don't really know. It could be lower or higher.
> ...




Well, three studies put it between 2% and 10%. Maybe the sampling was wrong... either way, yea, hard to prove sexual assault and rape in a non-public place.

There are lots of things normal peasants like ourselves figured would be obvious in this case... turns out there's another set of rule when it come to the better breed. 

Stepping over bodies on your way to the throne is a lot different from raping or murdering your fellow citizen up close and personal like that. We're a nation of law and justice my friend. 

So psychotically ordering your airforce to "kill anything that move on anything that fly" [Kissinger], openly talk of carpet bombing, wiping off the face of the Earth countries and cities; starving millions, sanctioning medical supplies or aviation safety hardware... that's protecting the empire, having leadership ability and love of freedom and democracy.


----------



## wayneL (8 October 2018)

93% true means 7% false grasshopper. 

Addirionally you've indulged in the gamblers fallacy,  it does not go to the probability in any case, because 100% id true allegations are true and 100% id false allegations are false. 

In this case,  it turns out to be false,  according to the evidence.

So,  if you are accused,  the statistics are irrelevant,  only the evidence can point to the truth,  otherwise, based in your probability stats,  every male shall be found guilty on probability. 

That is just freakin dumb.


----------



## luutzu (8 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> 93% true means 7% false grasshopper.
> 
> Addirionally you've indulged in the gamblers fallacy,  it does not go to the probability in any case, because 100% id true allegations are true and 100% id false allegations are false.
> 
> ...




What evidence? Pictures? Videos? He said, she said?

Trump got caught on a hot mic bragging about sexual assault... there's how many dozens of women coming forward? Meh... can't prove it now can we?

No, 93% probability of an alleged assault mean just that - a high probability that the accusation is not false. That of course does not mean the accusation is true. Hence the call for an independent investigation. 

Even if all studies have found the truthful rate to be 100%, there is still a chance that a new case upset that statistic.

In this particular case... 

You're asking people to believe that, one, the accuser is making it all up. But if she doesn't make it up, if the attempted rape did happen as it most likely did given Dr Ford's therapy sessions, her husband's statement, her friends, her career choice... you're asking people to believe that she mistaken virgin boy Kavo for some other drunk rapist at the same party where both her account and his diary said their circle of friends hang together. 

Anyway...


----------



## Tisme (8 October 2018)




----------



## luutzu (9 October 2018)

Tisme said:


>





That's just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen Tisme.

By the lady's own logic, she herself shouldn't be a Canadian because most of the statistics show Canada and Canadians to be overwhelmingly progressive Left, nice and decent folks... not an mean spirited idiot like her, or Jordan Peterson.

Or... following the same line of logic... a drunkard self-entitled spoilt little shiet like Kavanaugh must have attempted to rape a 15 year old girl because most rich spoilt little shiet from powerful families do that kind of crap knowing they can get away with it.

If you want to judge a person's character, maybe start with their chosen profession.

They're both from wealthy and privileged families, it's not reaching too far to think that they are free to choose any career path they wanted.

What did choir boy Kavo there chose to do? Well, after a sting at the local Soup Kitchen, a couple beers, throwing up it seem all through HS and at least first few years at Yale... he chose to become a freakin political operative, twisting laws, finding loopholes to, among other things, make it legal to torture and disappear people.

For his hard work, he got appointed a Judge where he ruled almost all the time against victims of corporate negligence and abuse. Hence the high ratings and a Trump nomination to be their corporate stooge on the third branch of govt.

Contrast that to Dr Ford... a scholar, a researcher, specialising in what? Trauma? Oh, trying to help victims and sufferer of abuse.

What a nasty greedy lying devil she is.

And oh... she is so cunning about opposing any Republican nominee that when she heard Kavo was on the short list, she called her state's Congress person to warn them that Kavo attempted to rape her so let it be known to the WH not to nominate him.

Wow, such a Machiavellian woman. Trying to hurt poor Judge Kavo from his lifelong dream of coaching his daughters' football team and bringing Justice to all Americans, incorporated or filthy rich.


----------



## sptrawler (9 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Polygraphs are unreliable that's why they are not used in court.
> 
> If you can reduce your stress levels by actually believing a lie then you will pass a polygraph.
> 
> Not saying that's what happened, but it's possible.




A bit like you saying, silly Billy will be good for us.

Sorry, my apologies, just couldn't let the opening go by, without a shot.


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> That's just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen Tisme.
> 
> By the lady's own logic, she herself shouldn't be a Canadian because most of the statistics show Canada and Canadians to be overwhelmingly progressive Left, nice and decent folks... not an mean spirited idiot like her, or Jordan Peterson.
> 
> ...



And this is exactly why the left are starting to lose and will continue to lose,  creating narratives despite due process and fact rather than following due process and fact. 

And you are collectively becoming shouty violent, another losing strategy. 

...and the plebs are walking up to it.


----------



## Tisme (9 October 2018)

luutzu said:


> That's just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen Tisme.
> 
> By the lady's own logic, she herself shouldn't be a Canadian because most of the statistics show Canada and Canadians to be overwhelmingly progressive Left, nice and decent folks... not an mean spirited idiot like her, or Jordan Peterson.
> 
> ...




OK. who ever has kidnapped luutzu, please untie him and swap seats.


----------



## luutzu (9 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> And this is exactly why the left are starting to lose and will continue to lose,  creating narratives despite due process and fact rather than following due process and fact.
> 
> And you are collectively becoming shouty violent, another losing strategy.
> 
> ...and the plebs are walking up to it.




I think most people do not identify themselves as Left or Right. They're just categorised as such so it's easier to massage the message for those ads.

There's always been one party in all the regimes of the world anyway. So left, right... meh. More like masters and slaves.

And if you watch that YT video Tisme linked... yea, that's passing for news and insights now?


----------



## Tisme (9 October 2018)

Whoops spoke too soon, now the Democrats and social robots are talking impeachment of Kavanaugh.

I can see the sun setting on the US Empire sooner than later given these historically repetitive signals of decline in national social cohesion and identity.

I think it was Roosevelt who advocated the world wanted to be like the USA with the four freedoms at its core and declared the US the new number one. That's wot, 77 years ago ... some empire, won't make 100 years the way its going


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2018)

Impeachment?

Oh yeah!  That would kick it all off, there is a seathing rage in middle America just waiting for an excuse to start shooting "commos".

(just reportage there folks)


----------



## noirua (9 October 2018)

Anyway he got the job and now Trump is safe as they wont try to impeach him. As the President has a 50% approval rating he's on track for a second term. Odds are favourable for The Republicans keeping a narrow majority in November.  Have the Democrats got a candidate better than Trump?


----------



## SirRumpole (9 October 2018)

noirua said:


> Have the Democrats got a candidate better than Trump?




Any five year old ?


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2018)




----------



## IFocus (9 October 2018)

Kavanaugh failed basic requirements to be nominated and that accessment came from his peers and ex Supreme Court judge all well outside the political establishment and the he said she said arguments.

The cheering tribalism we won is petty and misses many points.

Republican supporters says how terrible divisive the Democrats have been are naive to the fact that the Repubs changed the senate voting from 60 to 51 hence went from some sort of required consensus for nominations to all out ideological out war weaponizing the Supreme Court for the sake of Republicans this is against the very tenets of the US constitution the Republicans claim to be ardent guardians of.

BTW Democrats are not lefty, they are Repub lite , Repub elitist lite, neoliberalism losers believing in trickle down economics BS just like the Republicans (except they create flooding up economics) and do not represent the best interests of the majority of Americans....fact.


----------



## Sdajii (9 October 2018)

IFocus said:


> Kavanaugh failed basic requirements to be nominated and that accessment came from his peers and ex Supreme Court judge all well outside the political establishment and the he said she said arguments.
> 
> The cheering tribalism we won is petty and misses many points.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tisme (9 October 2018)

IFocus said:


> Kavanaugh failed basic requirements to be nominated and that accessment came from his peers and ex Supreme Court judge all well outside the political establishment and the he said she said arguments.
> 
> The cheering tribalism we won is petty and misses many points.
> 
> ...




Wasn't it under Obama's watch that the 60 vote rule was changed in 2013?


----------



## Junior (9 October 2018)

I find it curious, this habit of jumping to the defence of a man who has been accused of sexual assault..... Yes, in some cases perhaps the man is innocent, but in most they are not, or the allegations would not exist in the first place.  Surely there's better causes out there to be passionate about?  

I guess the Trump-loving herd will do his bidding without question.


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2018)

IFocus said:


> BTW Democrats are not lefty, they are Repub lite , Repub elitist lite, neoliberalism losers believing in trickle down economics BS just like the Republicans (except they create flooding up economics) and do not represent the best interests of the majority of Americans....fact.




Notwithstanding the nonsense of the deletia,  this part of yourpost is a good point.  You are correct that this is the majority of the party. However,  there is a large minority who are indeed far left...  Bernie,  Cortez et al. They are being used as useful idiots...  But this will surely bite the Dems on the 4ss. 

They rely on their vote,  but they are now losing them votes as they plumb the luducrous depths of cultural marxism.


----------



## IFocus (9 October 2018)

Tisme, Wiki the basis of all truth 

Dems started down the road GOP god bless them finished the job

"In 2015, Republicans took control of the Senate and kept the 2013 rules in place.[59] Finally, on April 6, 2017, the Senate eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the "nuclear option" for Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 along party lines"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate


----------



## IFocus (9 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> Notwithstanding the nonsense of the deletia,  this part of yourpost is a good point.  You are correct that this is the majority of the party. However,  there is a large minority who are indeed far left...  Bernie,  Cortez et al. They are being used as useful idiots...  But this will surely bite the Dems on the 4ss.
> 
> They rely on their vote,  but they are now losing them votes as they plumb the luducrous depths of cultural marxism.




Burnie wouldn't get a start in the NSW labor right faction seriously.

Marxism...in the US.....your kidding never ever........never.


----------



## IFocus (9 October 2018)

Junior said:


> I guess the Trump-loving herd will do his bidding without question.




When you create a victims mentality in the herd nonsensical argument using old look over there while  stripping conditions and reinforcing modern slavery pay rates with BS such as everyone is better off today than they were 40 years ago everyone goes into the patriots trance.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 October 2018)

Junior said:


> I find it curious, this habit of jumping to the defence of a man who has been accused of sexual assault..... Yes, in some cases perhaps the man is innocent, but in most they are not, or the allegations would not exist in the first place.  Surely there's better causes out there to be passionate about?
> 
> I guess the Trump-loving herd will do his bidding without question.




It's not unknown for false allegations to be made, but there are probably many more actual assaults that are not reported.

But what is sexual assault these days ? A pat on the backside ? How many years gaol is that worth ?


----------



## moXJO (9 October 2018)

Dems are now talking about stacking the benches with two additional democrat friendly judges if they win the house.


----------



## moXJO (9 October 2018)

Tisme said:


> Wasn't it under Obama's watch that the 60 vote rule was changed in 2013?



Yeah I thought it was.


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2018)

Sometimes I think we all live in parallel universes.

SMDH


----------



## Tisme (9 October 2018)

IFocus said:


> Tisme, Wiki the basis of all truth
> 
> Dems started down the road GOP god bless them finished the job
> 
> ...




I tend to stay well clear of Wiki, so my goto was the US Senate site:
e.g.
https://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/...under-nuclear-option-minority-will-be-crushed


----------



## Tisme (9 October 2018)

Junior said:


> I find it curious, this habit of jumping to the defence of a man who has been accused of sexual assault..... Yes, in some cases perhaps the man is innocent, but in most they are not, or the allegations would not exist in the first place.  Surely there's better causes out there to be passionate about?
> 
> I guess the Trump-loving herd will do his bidding without question.




I don't know if anyone was defending him, more the defence of proof and the herd mentality that marches to the beat of men are guilty and women pristine as the pure snow.


----------



## Tisme (9 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not unknown for false allegations to be made, but there are probably many more actual assaults that are not reported.
> 
> But what is sexual assault these days ? A pat on the backside ? How many years gaol is that worth ?




From my reading US women provide false testimony and US men purger themselves, one is criminal lite and the other is pure evil.

Remember Nayirah Ṣabaḥ and how the US got behind her full throttle ....until


----------



## SirRumpole (9 October 2018)

Tisme said:


> Remember Nayirah Ṣabaḥ and how the US got behind her full throttle ....until




Easy to get sucked in these days.


----------



## IFocus (9 October 2018)

Tisme said:


> I tend to stay well clear of Wiki, so my goto was the US Senate site:
> e.g.
> https://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/...under-nuclear-option-minority-will-be-crushed




The Supreme Court nominations changes was under Trump 2017


----------



## moXJO (9 October 2018)

IFocus said:


> The Supreme Court nominations changes was under Trump 2017



Na dems did it after gop thought about it.




> But for the vast majority of American history, nominees for nation's highest court effectively needed at least 60 votes, which often required some bipartisan support for the president's pick. Otherwise, a filibuster could hold up a nomination indefinitely.
> 
> _
> So what happened? How did we go from 60 votes to 51?
> ...


----------



## noirua (10 October 2018)

Junior said:


> I find it curious, this habit of jumping to the defence of a man who has been accused of sexual assault..... Yes, in some cases perhaps the man is innocent, but in most they are not, or the allegations would not exist in the first place.  Surely there's better causes out there to be passionate about?
> 
> I guess the Trump-loving herd will do his bidding without question.




The thread title is "Defending Brett Kavanagh". So those defending are on topic. Those against him are off topic.


----------



## sptrawler (10 October 2018)

Well at last a Woman calling it as it is, those with pitchforks will tie her to the stake. 

https://thewest.com.au/opinion/gemma-tognini/ceasefire-time-in-the-war-on-men-ng-b88985494z

From the article:
_What the world has watched play out over the past couple of months was a powerful and, granted, extreme example of this war, the primary weapon in which is demonising men about everything and for everything. It can’t be dismissed as falling into the bucket of “only in America” — the rot has taken root here, like larvae squirming their way through rotten fruit.

You can see it in every attempt to dismiss a male perspective. In the attempt to normalise the denial of natural justice over serious allegations such as rape and abuse — where a woman can make any claim she likes about a man and expect to be believed solely because she is a woman_.

WOW, I'm glad a bloke didn't write that.


----------



## wayneL (10 October 2018)

We'll have to start a thread "Defending Gemma Tognini", Homer.

Daisy Cousins made a great vid on the same topic, so Gemma ia not alone.


----------



## IFocus (10 October 2018)

moXJO said:


> Na dems did it after gop thought about it.




Nope, Supreme Court 2017 under Trump, your quote is for filler buster and the below statement note federal judgeships isn't the Supreme Court, still no moral high ground here for either side. _ 

"The nuclear option was implemented for the first time, and the Senate rules were changed so nominees for cabinet posts and *federal judgeships* could be confirmed with just 51 votes." _


----------



## SirRumpole (10 October 2018)

I think we should be more concerned about the 50 or so women *killed* in Australia each year by their partners or ex partners instead of what silly old Brett Kavanaugh allegedly did 35 years ago and that his alleged victim waited that long to say anything.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...ls-extent-of-domestic-violence-crisis/9492026


----------



## moXJO (10 October 2018)

IFocus said:


> Nope, Supreme Court 2017 under Trump, your quote is for filler buster and the below statement note federal judgeships isn't the Supreme Court, still no moral high ground here for either side. _
> 
> "The nuclear option was implemented for the first time, and the Senate rules were changed so nominees for cabinet posts and *federal judgeships* could be confirmed with just 51 votes." _



Ahh so it was noted under bush

51 vote implemented under dems.

But gop was the first to use it for a judge nomination.

Thats what your saying?


----------



## wayneL (10 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I think we should be more concerned about the 50 or so women *killed* in Australia each year by their partners or ex partners instead of what silly old Brett Kavanaugh allegedly did 35 years ago and that his alleged victim waited that long to say anything.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...ls-extent-of-domestic-violence-crisis/9492026



Agree,  there are real victims that deserve our full attention.


----------



## moXJO (10 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I think we should be more concerned about the 50 or so women *killed* in Australia each year by their partners or ex partners instead of what silly old Brett Kavanaugh allegedly did 35 years ago and that his alleged victim waited that long to say anything.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...ls-extent-of-domestic-violence-crisis/9492026



Mens mental health seems to be a problem out of control that doesn't really rally much support. 
We see all these rallies to stop men killing women and watch and wonder why the rate keeps ticking up. Imo they are throwing money at the wrong area.
Men with mental health problems will not respond to a situation in a normal fashion.

I think there were about 2350 male suicides last year. Thats a huge amount. Wait for a recession and that number will explode. 

I think violent crime has been dropping over the years, not sure if its still the case?

I'm seeing a lot of young men today not only weaker, but clueless as to where they stand and how to act in society. 

It needs more attention then what its been getting. Or we are in for bigger problems in the long run.


----------



## wayneL (15 October 2018)

Intetesting


----------



## luutzu (15 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> Intetesting





I think Chief Justice Roberts approved some 15 ethics violation complaints against choir-boy Brett to go ahead. 

That, they say, is unprecedented for a virgin saint sitting on the Supreme Court.


----------



## Tisme (15 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> Intetesting





She managed to hypnotise a fair few of the weak minded on social media too.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 October 2018)

Interesting, published by Mish, written by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.

Twenty-three years ago I crossed swords with a younger Brett Kavanaugh in one of the weirdest and most disturbing episodes of my career as a journalist.

What happened leaves me in no doubt that he lacks judicial character and is unfit to serve on the US Supreme Court for the next thirty years or more, whatever his political ideology.

a long article follows concluding with:

Mr Kavanaugh went on to write the Starr Report on the Foster death. But Mr Knowlton got the last word, literally. He filed a 511-page report at the US Federal Court with evidence alleging a pattern of skullduggery, and asked that it be attached to the Starr Report.

The three top judges did not agree but they ordered that a shorter 20-page version be attached at the end, despite vehement protest from the Starr office. This had never happened before in the history of the office of the independent council.

This summary asserts that the FBI had “concealed the true facts”, that there had been witness tampering, and that the report had wilfully ignored facts that refuted its own conclusions. There it sits in perpetuity, a strange rebuke for Mr Kavanaugh by his own fellow judges on the federal bench.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sinister-battle-brett-kavanaugh-over-202425923.html


----------



## Tisme (15 October 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> Interesting, published by Mish, written by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.
> 
> Twenty-three years ago I crossed swords with a younger Brett Kavanaugh in one of the weirdest and most disturbing episodes of my career as a journalist.
> 
> ...





Any detail on what they crossed swords on or with?


----------



## Knobby22 (15 October 2018)

Tisme said:


> Any detail on what they crossed swords on or with?



If you go to the link it's quite detailed. it seems that the investigation was corrupted.


----------



## Tisme (15 October 2018)

Knobby22 said:


> If you go to the link it's quite detailed. it seems that the investigation was corrupted.




It's like reading a tome. Was hoping the writer revealed the specifics of the crossed swords in his essay.


----------



## wayneL (15 October 2018)

Ambrose does have a narrative to push,  fwiw. 

Good writer,  but very biased.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 October 2018)

This is what should have been looked at though. Not what he did as a dumb 17 year old in the Porkys, Animal House era.


----------



## wayneL (3 November 2018)




----------



## Knobby22 (3 November 2018)

What's happened to the real wordly WayneL and who has taken control of his account??
Who is this credulous doppelganger? 

We are expected to believe in an obviously faked official document released to the WWW and a confession signed by Jane Doe?
(Not likely to be related to an election soon?)


----------



## Darc Knight (3 November 2018)

Lol. Fake documents. Whatcha got to say for yourself Wayne? TFDS (Trump fan boy derangement syndrome)???


----------



## wayneL (3 November 2018)




----------



## Logique (3 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> Intetesting



The irony is that the Republican are uniting for Trump in the face of these despicable attacks by the Democrats.  Combined with the current immigrant caravan approaching the border with Mexico, it's been a great fillip to the Republicans ahead of the US mid term elections.

Bravo to Brett Kavanaugh for not being bullied into withdrawing. He showed great character. Daisy Cousins described it as a 'political atrocity', and she is right.

Dr Ford is equally a victim, and I hope she gets the help she needs.


----------



## wayneL (3 November 2018)

So,  DK and Knobby,  how do you two buffoons feel now you've made fools of yourselves?


----------



## Darc Knight (3 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> So,  DC and Knobby,  how do you two buffoons feel now you've made fools of yourselves?






Welcome back Wayne!


----------



## luutzu (3 November 2018)

wayneL said:


>





Soo... old man Chuck there figured the other so-called victims of Saint Brett were lying and should be investigated. But the biggest liar of them all, Dr. Ford... the one who brought his nomination to a stand still... she's not being referred to the DOJ for some serious talking to?

So was Dr. Ford lying or not? By the FBI's and the wise old farts not finding any evidence.. Ford must be lying then... if she lied, why not referred her to justice too?

I thought these old, wise lawmakers know when to quit while they're ahead and have already won.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 November 2018)

Beats me why this thread is still running.

It wasn't very interesting in the first place and it's been done to death since.


----------



## luutzu (3 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Beats me why this thread is still running.
> 
> It wasn't very interesting in the first place and it's been done to death since.




Seeking truth and justice SirR. Truth and Justice.


----------



## Darc Knight (3 November 2018)

It's the weekend Rumpy. She's a bit slow in here atm


----------



## SirRumpole (3 November 2018)

Old age brings cynicism.


----------



## wayneL (3 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Beats me why this thread is still running.
> 
> It wasn't very interesting in the first place and it's been done to death since.



I thought it was an interesting development on a number of levels. 

My deepest and sincerest apologies it was so very uninteresting that you clicked on, and read it.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> I thought it was an interesting development on a number of levels.
> 
> My deepest and sincerest apologies it was so very uninteresting that you clicked on, and read it.




Haha yeah, Kavanagh himself is boring but the verbal battles here between the opposite sides of the spectrum are amusing.


----------



## wayneL (3 November 2018)

Debate is good, Horace.

Vive la liberté


----------



## luutzu (3 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Haha yeah, Kavanagh himself is boring but the verbal battles here between the opposite sides of the spectrum are amusing.




There's not much difference really. Always a bit of Yin in the Yang, Yang in the Yin 

btw, where's Tisme?


----------



## Ann (3 November 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Beats me why this thread is still running.
> 
> It wasn't very interesting in the first place and it's been done to death since.




I second that Sir Rumpy.
When I was very young, all sorts of things were thrust at me. However I was never a rabid feminist so had no problem with a young man's peccadillos. I found it mildy flattering if slighly annoying. I had no problem with putting a bloke in his place.There were more than a couple of blokes I could have named and shamed if I had wanted to be a female canine but I became a grown-up.


----------



## Logique (4 November 2018)

Who would like their entire life to be judged through the prism of their behaviour when 17 years old. Any volunteers! Own up you undergraduates.

As for Dr Ford, a polygraph test would be a start, as if she would ever submit to it


----------



## SirRumpole (4 November 2018)

Logique said:


> As for Dr Ford, a polygraph test would be a start, as if she would ever submit to it




Sure, but if its good enough for the goose...


----------



## Darc Knight (4 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> btw, where's Tisme?




I think he took a "if you can't beat em, join em" approach. @Tisme and  @moXJO have moved to Nimbin. They've joined the Greens and taken on the whole alternative hippie lifestyle.


----------



## wayneL (4 November 2018)

Ford will be busted eventually. Already her testimony has the credibility of a $3 note,  once the hard evidence surfaces,  she's going to gaol.


----------



## basilio (4 November 2018)

wayneL said:


>





Ok so Senator Grassley decides to bring the "full force of the law" to bear on a person who seems to have made up an allegation.
And yet... the allegations that were made by other women and corroborated by other people were not allowed to be tested by the FBI in their 4 day sham investigation.  Brett Kavanaugh was not interviewed about them. Nor were the other witnesses.

*Let's be totally and completly clear about this BS. It's just a smear against the other accusations that were simply ignored rather than properly investigated. Another piece of Trumpian merde.
*

*Trump tweets about “vicious” Kavanaugh accuser who lied. It’s not one of the ones you’ve heard of.*

*Trump’s using it to cast doubt on Kavanaugh’s other accusers.*

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...dy-munro-leighton-brett-kavanaugh-trump-tweet


----------



## wayneL (4 November 2018)

Vox.... Speaking of $3 notes


----------



## basilio (4 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> Vox.... Speaking of $3 notes




More BS Wayne ? Which part of that story was a lie ? 

Your happy to quote  and revere the most blatently dishonest President who has ever (dis)graced the office and then dismiss the factual reporting of his lies by anyone else.


----------



## wayneL (4 November 2018)

It seems your truth is subjective bas.


----------



## Darc Knight (4 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> It seems your truth is subjective bas.




You're a funny Bloke at times Wayne. Subjective truth - is that what Trump's supporters call Trump's daily lies and  sociopathic dishonesty?


----------



## wayneL (4 November 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> You're a funny Bloke at times Wayne. Subjective truth - is that what Trump's supporters call Trump's daily lies and  sociopathic dishonesty?



Well that that's one subjective assessment DK,  but I do think my subjectivity is more objective.


----------



## TikoMike (4 November 2018)




----------



## luutzu (4 November 2018)

TikoMike said:


>




Apparently she could remember enough that the GOP Senators wouldn't dare send the FBI to interview her.


----------



## ghotib (6 November 2018)

As I read it this woman didn't claim that Kavanaugh raped her. She falsely claimed to be the "Jane Doe" who did make that claim. The referral is not about Jane Doe's allegation against Kavanaugh.

Not defending the false claim or disagreeing that the claimant could be in serious legal trouble. But it doesn't say anything about Kavanaugh's history.


----------



## basilio (7 November 2018)

ghotib said:


> As I read it this woman didn't claim that Kavanaugh raped her. She falsely claimed to be the "Jane Doe" who did make that claim. The referral is not about Jane Doe's allegation against Kavanaugh.
> 
> Not defending the false claim or disagreeing that the claimant could be in serious legal trouble. But it doesn't say anything about Kavanaugh's history.




That didn't come up in the Liar-in-Chiefs  tweet did it ?  

So somewhere there is a real "Jane Doe" who made some serious rape accusations about Brett Kavanaugh (unproven and untested) while  a rather wacky women who pretends to have been the original "jane Doe" is going to get the book thrown at her for highlighting these accusations

And of course Brett, and the fellow travellers attempt to use this to smear all the other accusations.


----------



## luutzu (7 November 2018)

basilio said:


> That didn't come up in the Liar-in-Chiefs  tweet did it ?
> 
> So somewhere there is a real "Jane Doe" who made some serious rape accusations about Brett Kavanaugh (unproven and untested) while  a rather wacky women who pretends to have been the original "jane Doe" is going to get the book thrown at her for highlighting these accusations
> 
> And of course Brett, and the fellow travellers attempt to use this to smear all the other accusations.




Strange how all these women coming into contact with Brett hate his guts. Even dare to lie and falsely accused him of rape, sexual assault. Weird when all he'd done is work out, loves "beer", get stupid drunk and kept a diary. 

And oh, work his butt off at school because, as we all know, kids who drinks 'til they literally puke so frequently they got a reputation for it... They're the studious type after they sober up and pump iron a bit.


----------



## wayneL (7 November 2018)

luutzu said:


> Strange how all these women coming into contact with Brett hate his guts. Even dare to lie and falsely accused him of rape, sexual assault. Weird when all he'd done is work out, loves "beer", get stupid drunk and kept a diary.
> 
> And oh, work his butt off at school because, as we all know, kids who drinks 'til they literally puke so frequently they got a reputation for it... They're the studious type after they sober up and pump iron a bit.



Strange how they're all dem activists too. 

Strange how ladies who work with him regard him highly. 

Keep up the putrid smear chaps,  it's all you have.


----------



## luutzu (7 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> Strange how they're all dem activists too.
> 
> Strange how ladies who work with him regard him highly.
> 
> Keep up the putrid smear chaps,  it's all you have.




Are they Democrats? Where did you get that from?

Yea, rapist don't rape everybody they know do they? But wait, weren't there some colleague of his who also accused him of getting drunk after an evening out with her and couple other friends... then got really rubby on the lady?

Smear, right. I'd believe they're all smears when the GOP senators refer all those "baseless" accusation to the DOJ for a thorough investigation. 

Why refer one or two for false accusation but somehow left out the others, more prominent ones seeing how they're all lies and baseless?


----------



## wayneL (8 November 2018)

Grasshopper,  if you take just one step out of your Marxist echo chamber,  it was everywhere.. Munroe-Leighton and Ford are both known activist Dems,  as are the other proven liars.

Stuff CNN and the Grauniad wont report.


----------



## basilio (28 November 2018)

Nice piece of grace from Christine Blasey Ford.

* Christine Blasey Ford to give donations to charity for trauma survivors *
Psychologist who testified against Brett Kavanaugh announced her plan after using GoFundMe donations to cover security costs
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...asey-ford-security-donations-trauma-survivors


----------



## wayneL (28 November 2018)

It would be more gracious to apologise to Brett Kav and admit to her political motivation.


----------



## basilio (28 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> It would be more gracious to apologise to Brett Kav and admit to her political motivation.



Ah Wayne.. Still fishing....

You know what would be really good ?  If you decided for once to say something nice or true.  These nasty, nasty little lies are just so passe.


----------



## wayneL (28 November 2018)

Oh the irony bas. 

True isnt nasty, even if uncomfortable to hear, even if the Guardian won't tell you the truth. 

 The objective truth is that Ford is a liar of the first degree,  who tried to destroy a decent  and honourable man. 

However,  I do not expect such a dishonourable person to do the honourable thing. 

Her gesture is expedient, not honourable.


----------



## basilio (28 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> Oh the irony bas.
> The objective truth is that Ford is a liar of the first degree,  who tried to destroy a decent  and honourable man.
> .




Indeed Wayne.  Let's put that up with the the other "objective" truths you cherish so dearly

-Donald Trump represents a beacon of light to save the US.
-Climate scientists who understand global warming are lying alarmist rogues in the pay of the UN.
-The Proud Boys and Tommy Robinson sit next to Donald trump as "true defenders" of " Western Civilisation as we know it"
- Anyone who doesn't accept and agree with these self evident truths is a  Musilin loving Cultural- Marxist "undermining the  fundamentals of our Western Civilisation"

Yep.  All the pigs line up and now flying in formation.


----------



## wayneL (28 November 2018)

basilio said:


> Indeed Wayne.  Let's put that up with the the other "objective" truths you cherish so dearly
> 
> -Donald Trump represents a beacon of light to save the US.
> -Climate scientists who understand global warming are lying alarmist rogues in the pay of the UN.
> ...




Once again you expose the extreme left's penchant for misrepresentation. Though oh do tiring,  lets do it again. 

1/ Trump,  though subject to several foibles,  represents my hope the US may return to many if its tradition and constitutional values. 

2/ climate science us highly politicized, my view are well known, and differ substantively to your misrepresentation 

3/ The proud boys are a traditional center right mens group, Tommy a nativist who campsigns against Muslim pedophilia and rape of non muslim girls

4/ Straw man argument,  but contains a kernal of truth. 

And enough of your putrid porcinism


----------



## bellenuit (28 November 2018)

wayneL said:


> who tried to destroy a decent  and honourable man.




His response to the selection committee proved beyond doubt that he is not a decent and honourable man. Just a biased partisan who under no circumstances should be given that role.


----------



## basilio (23 January 2019)

Brett Kavanaugh might yet be impeached before Donald Trump.

There is a very intriguing video clip of Brett Kavanaugh trying to avoid an answer to a very  direct question. Remember  he is a Supreme Court judge at the moment...

*Brett Kavanaugh 'likely' to be investigated for perjury, House judiciary member says*
*Multiple Democrats on the House panel seen discussing latest Supreme Court justice's possible impeachment*
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...crats-house-judiciary-committee-a8740831.html


----------



## moXJO (5 May 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> We all do stupid things as teenagers, but for a Supreme Court judge there has to be high standards.



This is one of the replies I remember.

If you are going to set standards to be accused by, then at least be consistent:


----------



## SirRumpole (5 May 2020)

moXJO said:


> This is one of the replies I remember.
> 
> If you are going to set standards to be accused by, then at least be consistent:





Pity you didn't remember my comments at post 13.

If he was going to VP, Obama's staff would have vetted Biden intensely to see if there was anything embarrassing in his past. Obviously they found nothing.

Why these allegations come up now is a matter of suspicion in my view.

Anyway, that's another thread. The US is another country and I don't have a lot of interest either way, but as a principle which could be applied here it seems another case  of guilt by accusation, a tactic which didn't stand up (eventually) in a certain high profile case in this country.

PS I don't think you are being particularly consistent yourself if you defended Kavanaugh but demonise Biden for essentially the same matter.


----------



## moXJO (5 May 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Pity you didn't remember my comments at post 13.
> 
> If he was going to VP, Obama's staff would have vetted Biden intensely to see if there was anything embarrassing in his past. Obviously they found nothing.
> 
> ...



I don't believe in Biden being guilty with no evidence/trial. I think he is a creeper off past videos. There is definitely something with him invading personal spaces. 

But I'm not the one that ran my mouth saying we should accuse someone without evidence.
Dems should apply their standards to themselves.


----------



## IFocus (5 May 2020)

moXJO said:


> I don't believe in Biden being guilty with no evidence/trial. I think he is a creeper off past videos. There is definitely something with him invading personal spaces.
> 
> But I'm not the one that ran my mouth saying we should accuse someone without evidence.
> Dems should apply their standards to themselves.




Mo where were you went this come up


"At least 17 women have accused Donald Trump of varying inappropriate behavior, including allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault, all but one coming forward with their accusations before or during his bid for the White House.

The latest accusation came days ago from writer E. Jean Carroll, more than two years into Trump’s presidency, prompting a new denial from Trump."




https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-trumps-accusers-allegations-sexual-misconduct/story?id=51956410

BTW I have no doubt Biden did it same as Trump and Kavanaugh difference being Kavanaugh  should have been kicked out no room in the highest courts for doubt.


----------



## Logique (5 May 2020)

More evidence against Sleepy Joe than Kavanaugh. Or Pell.
The Democrats can't seriously be planning to let Biden loose in a public debate with the Donald.







> _https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ies-not-credible-kavanaugh-column/1497661002/
> "..Put aside Christine Blasey Ford's emotional performance. Her testimony revealed her as a witness whose memories change at her convenience.
> ...*Ford’s testimony is completely devoid of credibility*:..Ford’s allegations do not even meet the preponderance of evidence standard.
> Yes, victims must be believed. But Ford is not a victim — at least not of Kavanaugh."_
> ...


----------



## moXJO (6 May 2020)

[


IFocus said:


> Mo where were you went this come up
> 
> 
> "At least 17 women have accused Donald Trump of varying inappropriate behavior, including allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault, all but one coming forward with their accusations before or during his bid for the White House.
> ...



I stand in the same place as always. Take it to court. I don't believe either side accused or victim. But they have the utmost right to seek justice. If they had track form that's a different story. But there's a hundred reasons people get accused. And I want at least a minimal amount of evidence before accusing someone.

I'm not accusing Biden. But if the dems are suddenly going to act like all of a sudden women shouldn't be "heard". Don't you think that flies in the face of everything they have been ranting about the last 3 years?

"Live by the sword" and all that.


----------



## dutchie (20 September 2020)




----------

