New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#1 2018-09-21 17:09:35

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,909

Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

The lowest of the low comments and questioning. As Trump has is the man who protected a domestic abuser on his staff and campaigned for a credibly accused pedophile... Trump: If Kavanaugh's alleged attack 'as bad as' Ford claims, charges would have been filed So with that thinking the number of priests that did the same must also be false claims as well...NOT....

What is really an over looked issue as well is the threats to both Christine Blasey Ford and to Kavanaugh's wife as well from what would seem from boths parties....

Kavanaugh is also said to be grooming the women that work for him and it appears to be quite a racist as well.

Offline

#2 2018-09-21 19:02:19

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,909

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

What acheap shot this its when Boys will be boys? As Kavanaugh debate rages, teens are saying some adults still don’t get it

“I had a situation like this happen to me,” O’Connor told her 16-year-old daughter, Brynn, as they sat together in their Bethesda kitchen this week. She had also been a student at an all-girls prep school in the 80s when she had been at a party picking up her belongings and the door unexpectedly locked behind her.

Of course there are those that do remember ‘100 Kegs or Bust’: Kavanaugh friend has spent years writing about high school debauchery

The GOP Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is saying its going to vote whether she testifies or not refusing to call additional witnesses..... GOP to Kavanaugh accuser: Reach deal or panel votes Monday

Now there is a few that are breaking from party and no longer are going to vote for Kavanaugh after the Tweets Susan Collins ‘appalled’ after Trump questions Kavanaugh accuser

Trump's remarks was "completely inappropriate" given that many women don't report these incidents.

Offline

#3 2018-09-22 07:54:41

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,486

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

SpaceNut,

What exactly does "credibly accused" mean?  Is that a new legal standard of some kind?  If I can find two people who are willing to make accusations without evidence or even commit perjury against you because you don't share their political beliefs, is that how you want justice dispensed in your brave new America?  I think we could credibly get Democrats to believe anything derogatory in nature if a Republican or conservative was involved, even with no tangible evidence of any kind.

Maybe it was two people, maybe it was four people, not sure about what year it happened, and the psychologist who discovered this "repressed memory" had no names mentioned in her case notes...  Unimportant little details like that are why the proper place for accusations are our courts system, which we have, and have had since our founding, for the express purpose of settling accusations of criminal conduct.  Feinstein, the Democrat Senator from California, who felt so strongly that this was "information" / "pure Grade A BS" she received was disqualifying that she utterly failed to attempt to contact law enforcement at the time she received the information because she wasn't the least bit concerned about the potential that a crime was committed.  If the allegations were so credible, the time to bring those up were the moment the information was received, not months, years, or decades later.

Dr. Ford has been given an invitation to testify before Congress.  She can show up and testify if she wishes.  If she doesn't, then that's a pretty good indicator of the merits of her allegations, or lack thereof.  My guess is that this Democrat and her Democrat operative attorneys are trying to figure out how to commit perjury without being convicted of committing perjury.

Offline

#4 2018-09-22 09:11:04

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,985
Website

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

The "standard" to start an investigation need not be anywhere near as high as the "standard" to bring a case to court.  The investigation is supposed to find the things that support going to court or not.  Cases like this need to be tried in a real court,  not the court of public opinion (lynch mob,  really).  And a Senate hearing is tantamount to court of public opinion.  That is not the place to "try" this matter.

The GOP senator-and-White House comments that the FBI does not do investigations because sexual assault is not a federal crime,  are nothing but a political lie.  The FBI does background investigations for nominees all the time,  whenever asked by the White House.  They already did one on Kavanaugh,  and this assault thing is merely reopening that background investigation to go a little deeper. 

As I said,  this is political only.  The GOP is desperate to get a right-wing conservative on the Court before the mid term elections,  because the Senate is likely to flip as a result of the mid-terms.  That would cut off packing the Court with far-right candidates and force Trump to nominate someone more mainstream for any other openings. 

I would point out that Trump selected Kavanaugh from a list of candidates provided by a far-right organization.  He didn't have to select for far-right outlook,  giving him plausible deniability,  because they did it for him.  Common party tactic on either side,  in a town where party advantage is prioritized far above doing what is good for the country. 

The Dems of course are grasping for any way possible to delay the confirmation till after the midterms,  again understandable for party advantage. And quite understandable in terms of revenge for Mitch McConnell's refusal to consider Obama's appointment versus the hypocritical rush-to-confirm now. 

Plenty of blame to go around for reprehensible behavior on both sides.  We'd be better served to throw the lot out and start over,  somewhere else,  far from the lobby offices. 

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-09-22 09:15:32)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#5 2018-09-22 09:17:52

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,909

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

"credibly accused"
A civil suit against Donald Trump alleging he raped a 13-year-old girl was dismissed in California in May 2016, refiled in New York in June 2016, and dropped again in November 2016 being dismissed over technical filing errors (the address listed in court documents was a foreclosed home that has been vacant since its owner died). The lawsuit against Trump includes affidavits from two anonymous women who say they were witnesses. This is still on going last noted...
Katie Johnson had named Trump and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in a $100 million lawsuit, accusing them of having solicited sex acts from her at sex parties held at the Manhattan homes of Epstein and Trump back in 1994 (when Johnson was just 13 years old). Epstein was convicted in 2008 of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution and served a small portion of an 18-year sentence.

So the current situation of Kavanaugh is he said she said will be little more than listening to lip service with a denial to hear from other witnesses to testify is a sham. Trying to railroad through the nomination without investigation.

Grassley extends deadline for Kavanaugh accuser to decide on testifying

The testimony is still being negotiated with forceful deadlines to vote and not caring if its true or false....hearing claims that if he was 17 and she was 15 that its not rape even if they say no....

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

Offline

#6 2018-09-22 15:05:09

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,486

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

GW,

If Senator Feinstein really wanted an investigation, then she should've requested an investigation when she received the allegation letter from Dr. Ford.  There was absolutely nothing stopping Senator Feinstein from requesting that our FBI conduct an investigation into Dr. Ford's allegation, yet Senator Feinstein waited until Kavanaugh's confirmation vote was to take place before uttering a word about it.  Are the rest of us just supposed to believe that she suddenly grew a conscience?  Please.  These people and their enablers, our regressive media (CNN / CBS / MSNBC / Fox News / doesn't actually matter since they've all discredited themselves so horribly at this point), are literally swimming in a pool of their own brain diarrhea.  Who needs tangible evidence when you can just make things up as you go along?

The FBI has already investigated Kavanaugh many times over at this juncture in his career as a federal judge.  You don't get to be a federal government employee without having been investigated.  Kavanaugh either went from someone who was raping or attempting to rape underage girls to someone who no other woman he's interacted with had anything bad to say about him, or something about this woman's claim doesn't pass the BS test.  If an allegation made was unfavorable to a Democrat politician or candidate, we can bet our last dollar they'd be trashing this woman in the media.

You don't know what criteria was used to select Kavanaugh any more than you can flap your arms and fly, unless you've recently been sitting in on our President's judicial nomination meetings.  If Kavanaugh is far-right, then the 9th circuit is infested with Democrat Party operatives who have taken it upon themselves to legislate from the bench.  Kavanaugh won't touch any of the sacred cows of the regressives.

"The Dems of course are grasping for any way possible to delay the confirmation till after the midterms,  again understandable for party advantage." - That's only understandable in the sense that the partisans that our Democrats have elected are arguing that the Republican Party is putting itself ahead of justice while the Democrat Party makes every attempt to do the very thing they're accuse the Republican Party of doing.

"Plenty of blame to go around for reprehensible behavior on both sides.  We'd be better served to throw the lot out and start over,  somewhere else,  far from the lobby offices." - This is the most relevant comment I've seen from you regarding the current state of political affairs in America.  I don't trust any politician, not even President Trump, but the behavior of the Democrats lately more closely resembles the kind of political activities that took place in the former Soviet Union than in pre-Trump America.  They've gone from the party of the people to the party of their political agendas.  They're intent at reversing the presidential election results, by any means necessary.

To pretend that this partisan politics-motivated nonsense is something other than the biggest political hissy fit in the history of our country, predicated only on the objective fact that a total amateur named Donald Trump didn't (because he couldn't) buy his way into political office like the rest of our political partisans in our federal government, is to ignore fundamental truth on such a grand scale that anyone claiming otherwise can't be taken seriously as a thinking adult capable of a minor amount of objective reasoning.

1. We'll be waiting until long after we're all dead for any tangible proof that President Trump "stole" the election.

2. We'll be waiting until long after we're all dead for any tangible proof that Judge Kavanaugh raped or attempted to rape anyone.

3. We'll be waiting until long after we're all dead for any tangible proof that the new Democrat Party cares about anything but their agenda.

Whether you choose to accept the obvious truth of those three statements before you keel over, or not, is entirely up to you.  If Hillary Clinton had won the election instead of President Trump, you wouldn't see me posting here complaining incessantly about the results of the election or every stupid little thing she did in office, in much the same way that I didn't complain about every little thing that President Obama did that I disagreed with.  I've learned to accept that not every decision I would've made is the exact same as the decision someone else would've made.  I keep responding here because the stench of the malarkey is too much for me to stomach.

In the end, all politicians are crooks or become crooks, given enough time and power.  Hillary Clinton was just a superlative example of that timeless adage, and her arrogance about that is why she lost.  President Trump is a complete amateur at this game, which is the most important reason (to me) to support his presidency.  In another two years, if the voters aren't satisfied with the results, they can just vote for a different President and President Trump has no say-so in the matter.  I think all political jobs should be limited to a single term in office, with no salary for life, for anyone, after having been in office.  After the next presidential election, if I see Republicans rioting in the streets over the results, then I'll know it's time to start voting for Democrats because the behavior of the people voting for Republicans would then be no different and no better than the behavior of the people voting for Democrats.  Until that happens, I know which party at least maintains the pretense of civil behavior and which party can't even manage that level of decorum.

Offline

#7 2018-09-22 19:07:31

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,909

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

Seems that we can and can not believe what we read except when it convient to our desire for an out come.
So when the NYT writes an article against Trump and party its not to be believed fake news and then when they write an another article that is against the deep state we are to believe it. Sounds to me like they should be equally believed as true and that is what all this name calling is at best. Or at best half truths that we must figure out which half is the truth.

Offline

#8 2018-09-22 20:27:04

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,909

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

Aide to Sen. Chuck Grassley resigns amid reports he had been accused of sexual harassment

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is the one trying to railroad the nomination through....

Then throw this in for Republican state Rep. Jim Knoblach of St. Cloud Minnesota Rep. Jim Knoblach ends campaign amid daughter's allegations of inappropriate touching

Offline

#9 2018-09-23 09:59:13

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,985
Website

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

Re post 1792:  that I do not know where Kavanaugh’s appointment came from.  Yes,  I do.  This is quite easily researched,  just not from Fox and Friends. 

There are two conservative groups that supplied lists.  Neil Gorsuch came from the list provided by the Federalist Society.  It appears the consolidation of the two lists might be Mr. Trump’s actual list.  Brett Kavanaugh was a recent addition to one of these lists,  or else after they were consolidated. 

The point here is that “right-of-center” is NOT “mainstream”,  by definition.  These are right-of-center organizations,  presenting candidates that are right-of-center.  Not mainstream.

Excerpts from Wikipedia,  with lots of supporting references,  obtained 9-23-18:

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, most frequently called the Federalist Society, is an organization of conservatives and libertarians seeking reform of the current American legal system in accordance with a textualist or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Founded in 1982, it is one of the nation's most influential legal organizations.[6][7]

The organization plays a central role in networking and mentoring young conservative lawyers.[8] According to Amanda Hollis-Brusky, the author of Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution, the Federalist Society "has evolved into the de facto gatekeeper for right-of-center lawyers aspiring to government jobs and federal judgeships under Republican presidents."[6]

The Heritage Foundation (abbreviated to Heritage)[1][2] is an American conservative public policy think tank based in Washington, D.C. The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies were taken from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership.[4] Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States.

The Heritage Foundation has been described as a major influence on the presidential transition of Donald Trump and the Trump administration.[38][39][40] The foundation had a powerful say in the staffing of the administration, with CNN noting during the transition that "no other Washington institution has that kind of footprint in the transition."[38] One reason for the Heritage Foundation's disproportionate influence relative to other conservative think tanks is that other conservative think tanks had members who identified as "never-Trumpers" during the 2016 election whereas the Heritage Foundation signaled early on to Trump that it would be supportive of him.[38][need quotation to verify][39][need quotation to verify]

In preparation for the 2016 election, the Heritage Foundation began in 2014 to build a searchable database of at least 3.000 trusted conservatives capable of serving in a potentially forthcoming Republican administration.[39] According to individuals involved in crafting the database, hundreds of people that the foundation recommended for positions in the Trump administration ended up getting them.[39][need quotation to verify] At least 66 foundation employees and alumni got positions in the administration.[39] The foundation also recommended cabinet members Scott Pruitt, Betsy DeVos, Mick Mulvaney, Rick Perry, and Jeff Sessions.[39] Heritage head Jim DeMint personally intervened on behalf of Mulvaney, who would go on to head the Office of Management and Budget and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.[39]


The track record of some of these appointments has been less than stellar,  shall we say?

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-09-23 10:00:45)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#10 2018-09-23 10:16:14

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,486

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

SpaceNut,

At best, 50% of what any partisan media source (left wing / right wing / independent / sadly doesn't matter at this point) disseminates about the politics or behavior of their opposition is true.  Since the standards for journalism have fallen to that of tabloid magazines (without regard for which tabloid is spreading their propaganda), it's left to the consumer of the media to decide what is true and what is politically-motivated partisanship intended to divide or categorize people for purely political purposes.

If you think the people in control of this new Democrat Party have your best interests in mind when they behave as they presently do, which unfortunately no longer remotely resembles what the Democrat Party previously was, you're profoundly mistaken.  They'll say and do anything they possibly can to remain in power and exclude all others who don't share their political viewpoints from power.  The consequences of their actions aren't even an afterthought these days.  At some point, they just stopped caring about our shared ideals and started implementing their agenda.  They no longer care about the results.  If all available evidence disagrees with their agenda, then the evidence is wrong.

We're watching the Democrat Party do precisely what GW says he fears the Republican Party will do.  No matter what level of blind hatred they have towards people who don't share their political viewpoints, their divisive zealotry hasn't actually improved living conditions for the average American.  They've walked away from the guiding principles that made our country free and prosperous.

Despite all opposition from both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, President Trump is doing exactly what he claimed he would do.  I realize that hasn't happened in living memory for most Americans, but that's what our President is doing.  Our country is slowly but surely returning to prosperity as a result.  Some of the things he says are distasteful, disrespectful, and even mean spirited at times, but in the same way that there is such a thing as "the big lie", there is also such a thing as "the big truth".  The big truth is quite simple, yet no less profound.  This country will not be well served by an agenda that runs directly counter to our most cherished ideals.

While you're trying to find every possible fault with the Republican Party, it would be to your benefit to look at the alternative presented by the Democrat Party.  If you can express in words what benefits you or other Democrat voters you know received as a result of the policies of the Democrat Party, then feel free to post that information here, since it will add to the ongoing debate.

I tried numerous times to determine what policies were implemented by the Democrat Party during the previous administration that would benefit the average American, but found none.  The Affordable Care Act / ACA / Obamacare made health insurance two to three times more costly for the average American and/or provided fewer benefits at greater cost.  I'd hoped that someone benefited from ACA who was already paying health insurance costs prior to ACA, but I haven't found those people.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was supposed to create shovel-ready construction jobs, but the promised economic growth never materialized.  Raising the corporate tax rates to the highest in the western world didn't improve economic conditions for manufacturers wishing to bring manufacturing jobs back to America, either.  If you can articulate any direct benefits of the previous administration's economic policies, feel free to post those here.

Offline

#11 2018-09-23 10:49:35

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,486

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

GW,

Why don't you provide a list of some judges you think are "mainstream", rather than "left-of-center" or "right-of-center"?

What point of determination dictates what constitutes "mainstream" jurisprudence?  Is it the say-so of the leftists of the previous administration?

Further, why don't you point out some rulings made by either Kavanaugh or Gorsuch where their rulings ran counter to stare decisis in a way you take issue with?

Unless the The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies or the Heritage Foundation selected the judges that President Trump has nominated for SCOTUS, then you've no direct knowledge of why President Trump selected the candidates that he did, no matter what either of those two entities thinks of his choices.  You're assuming you do.  An assumption is not equivalent to knowledge.  Unless you sat in on the process used to select the candidates who were selected, you have none of that.  I'm not taking the word of someone assuming they know something for first hand knowledge.  I also notice that the article you pasted includes "need quotation to verify", meaning some of the suppositions written don't even have confirmed attribution.

Is it at all shocking to you that members of a conservative think-tank organization were nominated for positions by a POTUS who ran on a Republican platform and conservative politics?

Was President Trump obligated to nominate leftist members of the previous administration so they could constantly attempt to undermine his policy decisions?

Offline

#12 2018-09-23 14:53:26

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,286
Website

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

I don't see any problem with the POTUS appointing originalist justices to the Supreme Court. It's a perfectly legitimate position.


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#13 2018-09-23 15:46:06

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,909

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

Tabliod magazines and newspapers of the same are being read as if these are true when these are stories that are created and while being fictional are reported as if they are 100 % real....

Offline

#15 2018-09-23 22:30:36

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,486

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

If Dr. Ford wishes to make an allegation of sexual assault, then she could file a Police Report with the Maryland Police at any time because Maryland has no statute of limitations on sexual assault.  With all the Democrat lawyers advising her, she has yet to do that.  I really do wonder why she hasn't done that yet, unless she knows her allegation is false.  Judge Kavanaugh has already submitted sworn testimony that the alleged sexual assault incident allegedly committed by him against Dr. Ford never happened.  He's in serious legal trouble if there is any evidence of such an assault.  Unless he's very confident that no such incident ever took place, that was a major mistake.  The fact that he's already submitted sworn testimony and the fact that Dr. Ford hasn't filed a Police Report nor submitted sworn testimony about the alleged sexual assault is very telling.

If anyone here doesn't already know how federal law works, the FBI investigates federal employees suspected of committing crimes while working for the federal government.  This incident allegedly occurred when Judge Kavanaugh was 17 and Dr. Ford was 15 or 16 (since no year was given for the time the incident occurred).  Unless Judge Kavanaugh was working for the federal government when he was 17 or Dr. Ford was working for the federal government when she was 15 or 16, this allegation would be investigated by the Maryland State Police and Dr. Ford can file a Police Report with them whenever she wishes to do so.

The people demanding President Trump order the FBI to investigate this allegation are the same people claiming that President Trump has overstepped the authority of the executive branch of our federal government.  So these people are either advocating for President Trump to use executive power to usurp the police powers reserved to the State of Maryland while simultaneously complaining that he's doing so, or they support President Trump usurping the constitutional authority granted to him whenever it suits their politics.  For those who are still a little slow on the uptake, the FBI doesn't investigate people who were not federal employees unless they're suspected of committing federal crimes or the crime was suspected to have been committed on federal property.  This incident doesn't qualify as a federal crime on either count.  It is a state crime in every state in our nation, along with all our territories and possessions.

Offline

#16 2018-09-24 17:38:35

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,909

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

Roughly 40 years ago, I was sexually assaulted. Here’s why I don’t remember many of the details.

I never told anyone for decades — not a friend, not a boyfriend, not a therapist, not my husband when I got married years later.

It doesn’t surprise me one bit that for more than 30 years, Christine Blasey Ford didn’t talk about the assault she remembers, the one she accuses Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of committing.

Shame is a strong emotion that will cause woman to bury the thoughts of the event supressing them.

Minors do not call the cops to report a crime was commited to them, physiatric care is not allowed to report the crime was commited to them and most likely the parents are in the dark to the event. If report to the cops they will look to collect physical evidence that would show the crime and none would be collectible to tie the criminal to the act. Even if hair or fibers were collected back then they would not be of much value as dna testing is more recent.

A second MeToo has come forward New accuser at a dorm party during their freshman year at Yale sometime between 1983 and '84.

Who knows just how many more are out there.

Offline

#17 2018-09-24 23:02:45

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,486

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

SpaceNut,

1. Infantilizing women is not an argument supporting gender equality and I flat out reject that line of argumentation because it's an absurdity if you believe in gender equality.  That appears to be the argument you're trying to use.  The "shameful emotions of a woman" are not an acceptable excuse for not reporting crimes to the Police so that they can do their jobs and collect evidence required to prosecute suspected criminals.  Waiting decades to report crimes does nothing to help the victim or potential future victims.

2. Psychiatrists are absolutely permitted to report crimes to the Police, and no amount of misinformation to the contrary has had any effect on that simple fact.  Generally speaking, concealing crimes doesn't help prevent potential future crimes from taking place, nor does it assist with the prosecution of those who commit crimes.

3. If Dr. Ford's parents were in the dark about the behavior of their child, then they weren't very good parents.  If you're going to argue that their daughter should've been permitted to go to a party where adults were consuming alcoholic beverages, then we're fundamentally at odds regarding what we consider proper parenting.  This should in no way be twisted to mean that any assault against their daughter was acceptable in any way, shape, or form.

4. We're still waiting for sworn testimony or a Police Report from Dr. Ford.  The Police obviously weren't present to witness the alleged offense, so they're relying upon the morality of the citizenry they serve to report crimes to them.  Dr. Ford is free to submit sworn testimony or a Police Report at any time she wishes.

5. There are as many more accusers out there as are necessary for the Democrats to make a mockery of the Supreme Court nominations process.  If this failed ploy doesn't have the desired effect, I fully expect the next round of accusations to be that Judge Kavanaugh was involved in satanic human sacrifice rituals or hurting little puppy dogs.  The Democrat politicians value their collective tantrum over losing the last Presidential election more than their judicial oversight responsibilities.  The New York Times were so impressed by that second accuser's credibility that they flat out refused to print her allegations after she stated she was so drunk that she couldn't remember what happened and nobody else who was identified by her as being there could remember any such thing happening.  Unfortunately, some of our politicians and media are not as scrupulous in the vetting of their information sources.  This ceased to be about justice when Senator Feinstein concealed information about a potential crime for months instead of reporting it to the relevant authorities (Maryland State Police).

Finally, if people are to be automatically believed when they claim a crime was committed, predicated only on the fact that they're claiming that a crime was committed instead of due process of law, then that's profoundly unconstitutional.  If the two women making the accusations should automatically be believed, then what should we make of the numerous other women and men who have all stated that nothing of the sort ever took place (basically, accusing those two women of making false statements about Judge Kavanaugh)?  Does automatic belief only apply to Democrats accusing Republicans or conservatives of crimes, or does this work both ways?  Is this the new favored tactic of the Democrats for attacking their political opponents when all their other arguments are so lacking in merit and/or substance that this is the only remaining tactic they can employ?

The Democrat Party is in deep turmoil.  These most recent attempts at manipulating public sentiment to try to circumvent the judicial nominations process should be deeply unsettling to anyone who cares about equality before the law and due process of law.  It's time to walk away.

Offline

#18 2018-09-25 16:29:22

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,909

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

Boys versus Girls, children until after age of consent are not equal and since woman can feel that its shameful and all there fault means they will not without physical evidence be recognized as saying the truth of an incidence in a one on one he said she said.
Alter boys fell under this same shame and they were finally heard as being real without any evidence as well.

Reporting criminal activity that a therapist learns about through a therapy session is a decidedly tricky situation. The information shared between a patient and therapist, in almost all cases, is meant to be kept confidential in order to build a trusting relationship. Psychiatrist is professionally bound to confidentiality, and releasing this information could cost him his job, his reputation, and a lot of money in a lawsuit. However, the specifics of therapist-patient privilege, confidentiality, limitations and exceptions to privilege, are determined by State law and case law. Therapists may be prohibited from reporting a crime (because they are bound by confidentiality), or they may be permitted or even required to report it. We are anything but not a United States group when it comes to law since each states laws are different.

The woman can wave the rights for the privacy to have any reports that they have of the event be released.

I agree with you on the womans parents not being good parents.

The sworn testimony is coming and there are going to several more with different acusations.

Its more like the evidence of Trump picks that have been shown to be guilty of the found crimes that are casting the cloud over Kavanaugh with each of these claims that have come forward.

Second accuser Deborah Ramirez, who attended Yale University with Kavanaugh in the 1980s Sarah Huckabee Sanders indicated that the White House is open to the idea of hearing testimony from Ramirez at that hearing with Michael Avenatti says he has another Kavanaugh accuser (not Deborah Ramirez), DEMANDS ‘opportunity to present testimony.

Mormon women demand that the Church of Latter-day Saints senators halt Kavanaugh hearings so misconduct allegations can be investigated

An organization of Mormon women formed in response to President Trump’s election is calling for GOP Sens. Orrin G. Hatch and Mike Lee of Utah, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Mike Crapo of Idaho.; the four Mormon members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to pause hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh until the claims of two women alleging sexual misconduct can be investigated.

“Given the seriousness of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh,” the group’s statement read, a “thorough independent investigation” must be conducted “to ensure that these charges be taken seriously and that every attempt be made to ascertain the truth of the situation. Our mutual faith teaches that any sexual abuse or assault in any context is contemptible and worthy of the most severe condemnation.”

I do not know how many you have heard are killing themselves over bullying to which harashment falls under as well in schools but it appears to be on the rise again.

Offline

#19 2018-09-27 21:28:12

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,909

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

Offline

#20 2018-09-28 04:18:52

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,486

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

SpaceNut,

I think we have a credible attempt at making false official statements under oath for political purposes and an admission of underage drinking.  It's a pity that this poor woman has been used or allowed herself to be used as a political pawn by the Democrat Party to ruin her life in an attempt to ruin the life of Judge Kavanaugh.

Dr. Ford couldn't remember any other details of this alleged incident, but she's 100% sure that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.  That doesn't sound like someone who just had one beer or forgot a few details.  None of the people she named as being there have any recollection of ever going to such a party.  Her own best friend said nothing of the sort ever happened and that she's never met Judge Kavanaugh, at the alleged party or anywhere else.  Dr. Ford may believe every word she's saying, but that doesn't make it true.

Even if she never told her parents a thing because she was drinking underage, what kind of girl doesn't tell her best friend that she was sexually assaulted by the boys they were hanging out with?

The other two allegations are utterly ridiculous nonsense, and also refuted by everyone else who was supposedly involved.

Judge Kavanaugh was either a high school and college serial rapist who never committed another criminal act afterwards, or this is a veritable mountain of lies from people who only have chance encounters with the truth.  People who believe in due process of law need to ask themselves why Dr. Ford still hasn't filed a Police Report, can't remember any other pertinent detail of the alleged incident (how she got there, how she got home, what year it happened, whether she'd ever seen Judge Kavanaugh before the alleged incident and how well she knew him), and the woman she named as her best friend couldn't corroborate the simple fact that they were at a party or that she's ever met Judge Kavanaugh at some point in her life.  Please forgive the rest of us who think this is all a little too convenient.

Offline

#21 2018-09-28 10:20:10

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,985
Website

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

Cases like this are supposed to be settled in a proper court of law,  not the "court" of public opinion.  Before the 24/7 news "cycle",  the media were not so insistent on trying these cases in the "court" of public opinion.

The court of public opinion is not a cousin,  but a sibling,  of lynch mob justice.  That has a very poor track record at determining true outcomes,  which is why we supposedly outlawed it (except that the media and our political figures have brought it back).  And don't kid yourself,  a Senate hearing is nothing but another court of public opinion. 

The proper way of dealing with this would have been to do the police investigation,  and present the results to a grand jury.  If worthy of an indictment,  then go to trial with it.  If not,  discard the issue. 

Meanwhile,  if the accused is a public figure considered as a nominee for a judicial post,  then (1) he is innocent until proven guilty,  but (2) you don't want to have to unseat him for a conviction if he does have to go to trial.  It is difficult to unseat judges,  even with proven misbehavior. 

What that really means is that you put the nomination on hold,  until you find out from the real (!!!!) courts of law whether he really is innocent or guilty.  I'm sorry,  that is the wisest choice,  and best for the good of the country.  Simple common sense says so.  Very inconvenient for party advantage.  Too bad,  so sad. 

We seem to have so very few who prioritize the good of the country above party (or personal) advantage anymore.  My advice is vote only for those who would prioritize highest the public good,  regardless of their party membership.  All else pales in comparison. 

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-09-28 10:23:24)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#22 2018-09-28 18:47:36

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,909

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

Kavanugh barely mustered the votes 11 to 10 but got a bit more than he might have wanted in the bargain as he will be investigated and possibly disbarred....
Kavanaugh vote

President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the Supreme Court. The Senate, tasked with the confirmation process, is split at 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats. Republicans will need a minimum of 50 votes, so that Vice President Mike Pence can cast a tie-breaker. Which might not happen is that tie is not there to start.

Jeff Flake cast the desiding vote but with conditions...

Flake and Murkowski join Democrats in calling for FBI inquiry of sex assault allegations against Kavanaugh

The phones were very busy during the last few days but also up during the voting During Kavanaugh-Ford hearing, calls to sexual assault hotline spiked by 201 percent; "The focus of the news cycle on sexual assault has been really challenging and, for many individuals, triggering," said a spokeswoman for a sexual violence prevention group.

Wonder just how many more were Kavanaugh complaints....

180928-kavanaugh-protest-supreme-court-ew-103p_7ebe0d8e8d5cde14c30080e1e3c8a923.fit-2000w.jpg

It is said that under pressure President Trump orders FBI to conduct "supplemental investigation" into Kavanaugh allegations — live updates must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week," the president's statement reads.

The supplemental FBI background investigation would be limited to current credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today," the statement from the committee reads.

The American Bar Association has urged the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate to slow down the confirmation process for President Trump's Supreme Court pick, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, until the FBI has time to do a full background check on the claims made by Ford and other women.


This brings up this topic for many parents that have not done so Breaking the silence: Talking to young kids about sexual assault and consent How to have an ongoing and age-appropriate conversation with younger children about their bodies and consent.

Offline

#23 2018-09-29 03:13:00

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,286
Website

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

Has Ford given a specific date yet when the attack was supposed to have taken place?


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#24 2018-09-29 20:43:11

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,909

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

All I have seen is the reference to 1982 house party.

The FBI has begun contacting people as part of an additional background investigation of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, including a second woman, Deborah Ramirez, a Yale University classmate where Kavanaugh’s shoved more than she wanted into her face at a party where she had been drinking and become disoriented.

Attorney for Stormy Dan, Michael Avenatti with client, Julie Swetnick of Washington, D.C., along with court documents detailing new allegations against Kavanaugh.  She alleges that on numerous occasions at those parties, she saw Kavanaugh intoxicated and engage in what she called "highly inappropriate conduct," including "the fondling and grabbing of girls without their consent."

"I observed Brett Kavanaugh drink excessively at many of these parties and engage in abusive and physically aggressive behavior toward girls, including pressing girls against him without their consent, 'grinding' against girls, and attempting to remove or shift girls' clothing to expose private body parts," Swetnick writes in the declaration. Swetnick's declaration also included an allegation that she was raped by multiple boys at a party in 1982. Of course this sounds all to simular.....


A dramatic confrontation in the elevator CLOSE Two women cornered U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake in an elevator Friday, moments after he announced he would vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh by two women who said they were survivors of sexual assault …[url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jeff-flake-says-he-will-vote-supreme-court-nominee-brett-n914721]Sen. Flake, after confrontation with sex assault survivor, calls for FBI investigation of Kavanaugh
"Don't look away from me!" the woman, Ana Maria Archila, told the Arizona Republican while he was in a Senate building elevator.[/url]

I got thinking about this confrontation and the words 'Look at me' and tell me that it doesn't matter what happened to me to which these could be the words of an acuser that might point at Flake and use to indicate that he was one as well. but it was not as

"On Monday, I stood in front of your office," Archila, co-executive director of the nonprofit Center for Popular Democracy Action, told Flake. "I told the story of my sexual assault. I told it because I recognized in Dr. Ford's story that she is telling the truth. What you are doing is allowing someone who actually violated a woman to sit on the Supreme Court."

Offline

#25 2018-09-30 17:11:07

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,909

Re: Kavanaugh Supreme court Nomination

Kellyanne Conway cleared her throat for what she was about to say. “I’m a victim of sexual assault,” President Trump’s adviser told CNN on Sunday.
Kellyanne Conway says she is a victim of sexual assault

Admitting to it happening to her but defending the men that are and have done it.....

We do know that President Trump has been accused of sexual harassment or sexual assault by more than one dozen women, but has denied these claims. The President has also defended several man against sexual assault or misconduct claims, including former Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, and former Fox host Bill O’Reilly but they were found to have committed the crimes that they are acused of.

Fight over Kavanaugh intensifies amid confusion over limits of FBI sexual assault investigation but was also opposed to a “fishing expedition” that could take a broader look at Kavanaugh’s credibility and behavior.

federal investigators are pursuing allegations made by two women but not a third, Julie Swetnick, who signed a sworn affidavit accusing Kavanaugh of sexually aggressive behavior and being present at parties where gang rapes occurred.

Sounds to me like the FBI is trying to defuse the situation and not investigating even when there are known charges that should be brought.

Charles Ludington, a former varsity basketball player and friend of Kavanaugh’s at Yale, told The Washington Post on Sunday that he plans to deliver a statement to the FBI field office in Raleigh on Monday detailing violent drunken behavior by Kavanaugh in college.

White House: There's no 'micromanagement' of reopened FBI probe into Kavanaugh accusations

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB