Supreme Court Nominee #2

[simba16]

I'm not sure why some are having such difficulty understanding this critical point.

I don't think anyone here has difficulty..

 

[Mickey Mouse]

Feinstein was asked to keep the info confidential and she did just that.

She could easily have informed the committee in one of their closed door meetings that she had been approached by a Jane Doe alleging BK had sexually assaulted her when he was a young man. The committee could have then asked the FBI to expand their investigation in that direction. There is no reason this could not have been done while maintaining confidentiality. After all, if this was supposed to be a pattern of behavior, there would undoubtedly be other incidents and any number of possible Jane Does. Feinstein sat on it deliberately for political reasons.

 

[kaen]

sounds like a sham to me ... bbm

FBI narrows focus into Kavanaugh investigation

The investigation is the result of a dramatic day in Washington on Friday that by all appearances began with quick movement towards Kavanaugh’s confirmation and ended with a pause in the process while the FBI steps in. Following the agreement for the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh, the focus has moved to how the probe will be handled, its ultimate findings and whether it will put to rest fears about a lack of due diligence over the nominee for the nation’s highest court.

A source with knowledge of the investigation say the FBI will interview a handful of people and only take direction from the White House, not the Senate.

Kavanaugh’s drinking history, which has come up in the allegations, is not part of the probe.​

I am not surprised. The devil is always in the details. I wonder what Mr. Flake will do. He and his group of holdouts were looking for a reason to vote "Yes." This gives it to them. Sham, once again. It is like the line that all senators had to do was ask for an FBI investigation.

 

[MyBelle]

I question this as well. The committee's offers (come to CA, private hearings, etc.) were all over the news, and it surprises me that, even if her attorneys did not bring these offers to her, no one in her family, none of her friends, neither she nor anyone she's close to, none of them saw any of these news reports? I am skeptical that she was unaware of these well-publicized offers.

Which is why Sen. Graham is calling for a full investigation into who leaked Ford's letter.
Sen. Lindsey Graham seeks investigation of 'despicable process' behind Kavanaugh hearing

 

[simba16]

I question this as well. The committee's offers (come to CA, private hearings, etc.) were all over the news, and it surprises me that, even if her attorneys did not bring these offers to her, no one in her family, none of her friends, neither she nor anyone she's close to, none of them saw any of these news reports? I am skeptical that she was unaware of these well-publicized offers.

This is really a non-issue. The negotiations were in flux and attorneys from all 3 victims dispute Grassley's version.

 

[Cubby]

sounds like a sham to me ... bbm

FBI narrows focus into Kavanaugh investigation

The investigation is the result of a dramatic day in Washington on Friday that by all appearances began with quick movement towards Kavanaugh’s confirmation and ended with a pause in the process while the FBI steps in. Following the agreement for the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh, the focus has moved to how the probe will be handled, its ultimate findings and whether it will put to rest fears about a lack of due diligence over the nominee for the nation’s highest court.

A source with knowledge of the investigation say the FBI will interview a handful of people and only take direction from the White House, not the Senate.

Kavanaugh’s drinking history, which has come up in the allegations, is not part of the probe.​

This reeks of enabling. Well, if the FBI isn't going to be able to look into how his drinking plays into this, let's hope those closest to BK plan an intervention if those closest to him deem it necessary.

 

[Jax49]

'Boofing' and 'ralphing' and other doubts about Kavanaugh's testimony

Among the witnesses who have said they don’t recall the events is Mark Judge, Kavanaugh’s high school friend, who Ford claims was the only other person in the bedroom while Kavanaugh was drunkenly groping her. During Thursday’s hearing, Kavanaugh said, “Mark Judge has provided sworn statement saying this didn’t happen.” That sentence isn’t true. Judge discussed the allegations not in a sworn statement but in a letter from his lawyer. He doesn’t say that the assault didn’t happen but that he had “no memory of the alleged incident.” Judge submitted another signed letter Thursday night repeating the statement.

 

[simba16]

Which is why Sen. Graham is calling for a full investigation into who leaked Ford's letter.
Sen. Lindsey Graham seeks investigation of 'despicable process' behind Kavanaugh hearing

And a reopening of Benghazi? Hillary's emails? Meanwhile attorneys of Dr Ford and Julie Swetnick have heard nothing from FBI.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

School yearbooks from her HS years that have been removed from the web.

The yearbook title is ——-. The relevant issues are ——— 82, —— 83 and ——— 84,

rsff

Jumping off your post!

If they’ve been removed from the web, then where are they? Why are you referencing them? ... Ah, no. I know. Sorry. That’s a bit of a trick question on my part, because they’re still on the web.

The “scrubbed from the web” conspiracy theory is false. (Links upthread.) That’s what the clickbait alt-right sites use to con people out of a click. You know how I know? Because they’re posted on sites like “new world order report”, etc.

We just can’t post them or discuss them here. Because the accusers are victims and we’re a victim-friendly forum. And there’s no independent verification as to the authenticity of the images.

As we’ve all seen, many so-called “soros” ties — women allegedly captured in photos with him, etc. — have been proven false or misidentified.

This is what those sites are shilling and a reason why they’re not considered MSM.

There’s nothing sneaky or conspiratorial about forums, news organizations, etc. that believe in protecting the victim’s privacy.

In fact, it’s the standard.

That, to me, is why you’ll only see a few “select” publications of a certain ill repute running the yearbook images. ... And then making up outrageous conspiracy theories (aka lies) to justify why’re they’re doing it.

Allllllll moo, of course!

 

[MyBelle]

She could easily have informed the committee in one of their closed door meetings that she had been approached by a Jane Doe alleging BK had sexually assaulted her when he was a young man. The committee could have then asked the FBI to expand their investigation in that direction. There is no reason this could not have been done while maintaining confidentiality. After all, if this was supposed to be a pattern of behavior, there would undoubtedly be other incidents and any number of possible Jane Does. Feinstein sat on it deliberately for political reasons.

It does appear the goal all along was to have a public, fully televised hearing in order to publicly humiliate Judge K. I don't believe the dems anticipated the intense public backlash over such disgusting tactics. JMO

 

[Mica]

Prosecutor tells wavering senators she wouldn't charge Kavanaugh, as vote looms

The sex-crimes prosecutor Republicans hired to question Brett Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford at Thursday's hearing told senators the case would not hold up in a courtroom, sources told Fox News—guidance that could prove critical as wavering lawmakers prepare to vote.

The prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, spoke at an overnight meeting where all 51 Republican senators were present, two people briefed on the session said.

“Mitchell spelled it out and was clear with senators that she could not take this anywhere near a courtroom,” one source told Fox News. She told them she would not charge the Supreme Court nominee and reportedly said she wouldn't even seek a search warrant.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

“snipped for focus”

Respectfully, please don’t tell me what my words do or don’t mean or take them out of context.

I wrote clear and fully formed declarative sentences, not questions. They also are my opinion.

You’re welcome to disagree, obviously, which is fine. That’s your opinion. Please don’t twist mine to serve yours.

I was making a statement of my opinion. I didn't twist anything.

If you have a problem with any of my posts please alert a mod.

 

[Hope4More]

If I were the juror, I could never convict. Not that I like K, believe K, or want him confirmed to the Supreme Court. But I could never vote to convict because there is way too much reasonable doubt for me. The alleged victim could be 100 % sincere but I have no way to evaluate how accurate her memory is all these years later. A witness can be 100 % sure and 100 % wrong.

The victim could also be 100% sure, and 100% correct. In this hypothetical, as a juror, I don't think I could convict either. That the defendant COULD have done it, based on his drinking & his treatment of girls/women, isn't proof/evidence enough, in a court of law, to upon which to convict.

Back to the real circumstances. In the real world, there is zero possibility, imo, that the FBI with all the time in the world, could find enough proof of Ford's claims to be able to substantiate them. I'm sure that every single Senator, Dem or repub, knows this as well.

If the FBI could investigate freely, I'm betting they could in fact verify Ramirez's claim that K was drunk at a Yale party, that she was there, that she was targeted to get drunk, that the dildo thing happened, that someone exposed himself to her, and that others at the time, shortly afterwards, and even now believe that person was K.

The fact that she had to think for 6 days about whether or not it was K does not help her own credibility, even if others swear upon oath it was K.

Every Senator knows this too, as does the WH, as does Kavanaugh.

So...neither Dr. Ford or Ramirez's allegations pose a significant threat for any of them to be especially concerned about the final count to confirm K, based on those allegations alone.

If those allegations pose no real threat, and since the original token investigation would satisfy politically the dems demand to have Justice sworn under oath, and other assault allegations explored, why does the WH feel a need to control & limit the FBI's investigation?

It is extremely telling, IMO,how K's drinking is THE central thread connecting what K perjured himself about & wouldn't answer direct questions about, and what specifically is off limits in every way in the FBI "investigation."

But....why? Why the fear of having the extent of K's drinking exposed?

No republican Senator would vote no to K based solely on his drinking too much , in HS or college. No Dem votes are required to confirm K.

I don't believe any repub Senator would believe that proof of K's drinking is proof enough that he assaulted Dr. F; the 36 years ago window allows them to say they find Dr.F credible, but lack the coloborating evidence to take her word over his denials.

Again...so why fear evidence that K drank to excess? Even to the point of blackout?

The only conceivable reason I can think of is that if such evidence is found & reported by the FBI, that would be concrete evidence that K has perjured himself about his drinking- back in 2006 during confirmation, and now. I also believe it likely that such evidence could prove that K lied about his drinking to the FBI during his back ground checks, and, -each time he did so, if he did, would be a felony.

No SC for him, and impeachable from his current bench.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

In this case unfortunately all other supposed witnesses claim to not recall anything about the incident.

Incorrect. The multiple alleged victims are witnesses and witness testimony is evidence.

 

[CoolJ]

Wow, I just spent some time comparing and contrasting the MSM coverage on this case over the past several days.
If you were to watch the Democratic News Network vs GOP News, you would think you were switching back and forth between alternate universes.

This is what you call main stream news? Seriously?

You are being deceitfully manipulated on both sides. The news isn't news anymore.

This is not a free press people. America, get your head out of your you know what!

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

I was making a statement of my opinion. I didn't twist anything.

If you have a problem with any of my posts please alert a mod.

Same. Thanks.

 

[Mica]

rsff

Jumping off your post!

If they’ve been removed from the web, then where are they? Why are you referencing them? ... Ah, no. I know. Sorry. That’s a bit of a trick question on my part, because they’re still on the web.

The “scrubbed from the web” conspiracy theory is false. (Links upthread.) That’s what the clickbait alt-right sites use to con people out of a click. You know how I know? Because they’re posted on sites like “new world order report”, etc.

We just can’t post them or discuss them here. Because the accusers are victims and we’re a victim-friendly forum. And there’s no independent verification as to the authenticity of the images.

As we’ve all seen, many so-called “soros” ties — women allegedly captured in photos with him, etc. — have been proven false or misidentified.

This is what those sites are shilling and a reason why they’re not considered MSM.

There’s nothing sneaky or conspiratorial about forums, news organizations, etc. that believe in protecting the victim’s privacy.

In fact, it’s the standard.

That, to me, is why you’ll only see a few “select” publications of a certain ill repute running the yearbook images. ... And then making up outrageous conspiracy theories (aka lies) to justify why’re they’re doing it.

Allllllll moo, of course!

I will not respond to “trick questions ” as you call it.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Wow, I just spent some time comparing and contrasting the MSM coverage on this case over the past several days.
If you were to watch the Democratic News Network vs GOP News, you would think you were switching back and forth between alternate universes.

This is what you call main stream news? Seriously?

You are being deceitfully manipulated on both sides. The news isn't news anymore.

This is not a free press people. America, get your head out of your you know what!

No, that’s literally NOT the definition of mainstream news, coolj. Lol. Maybe that’s why there’s so much confusion. Do people really not know what it is?

It’s not one extreme or the other.

Which moderate, mostly slightly left or right leaning sources did you read?

They’re the most fair, unbiased and factual. THOSE are mainstream media sources.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

I will not respond to “trick questions ” as you call it.

Like I said, I wasn’t really asking a question. It was what many call rhetorical. No intent to deceive, I promise, and I clearly stated as such.

That’s also why I said I was “jumping off” your post.

I appreciate your reply, though.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

I'm not sure why some are having such difficulty understanding this critical point.

Because it’s untrue.

Bumping:

Incorrect. The multiple alleged victims are witnesses and witness testimony is evidence.