Political Wrinkles

Political Wrinkles (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/)
-   Open Discussion (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/open-discussion/)
-   -   The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/open-discussion/56020-democrats-resistance-kavanaugh-nomination.html)

pjohns 09-15-2018 02:37 PM

The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination
 
Just a few thoughts:

(1) Presumably, next we will be dredging up the fact that Harry has been accused of dipping Sally's pigtails in the inkwell, back in the third grade.

(2) This allegation is, at best, a typical he-said-she-said case--not a provable matter.

(3) The usual principle of innocent until proven guilty has been turned--rather conveniently--on its head. At least, for charges of sexual misconduct.

(4) If Sen. Feinstein were really so concerned about this matter, she could have spoken out long ago. But she waited until maximum damage might be done, before saying anything.

The truth, of course, is that the leftists do not wish to see a 5-4 majority of originalists on the Supreme Court; and they will do whatever they can to stop this from happening.

The politicization of the High Court began with Judge Robert Bork in 1987; and it continues today.

Of course, the Supreme Court was never intended to be a political branch of government; but, sadly, it has become just that.

cnredd 09-16-2018 02:18 AM

Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pjohns (Post 948896)
Of course, the Supreme Court was never intended to be a political branch of government; but, sadly, it has become just that.

Liberals can't get ridiculous, anti-American legislation passed through Congress, so they have the Judicial Branch do it for them...Trump is preventing their only way of subversion,and they hate him for it...:yes :(

Hairy Jello 09-17-2018 07:17 PM

Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination
 
The latest tactic by the left is to have some chick to accuse Kav of sexually assaulting her in high school decades ago.

Unfortunately this chick already looks like a liar. Turns out she's a documented liberal activist and anti-Trumper.

KAVANAUGH ACCUSER IS AN ANTI-TRUMP LEFTIST WHO ATTENDED WOMEN’S MARCH, DONATED TO DNC

Judge Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford is an anti-Trump leftist who participated in the Women’s March and donated to the DNC, revelations that make the attempt to delay Kavanaugh’s nomination look increasingly like a desperate political ploy.

Ford, now a professor at Palo Alto University in California, accused Kavanaugh of holding her down on a bed and groping her at a house party in Maryland in the early 80’s when Kavanaugh was 17 and Ford was 15.

Ford asserts that the attack was so severe, she thought Kavanaugh was going to “inadvertently” kill her, claiming, “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

The professor says that the assault only came to a stop when a third person, Mark Judge, intervened and jumped on top of them.

However, Judge has completely denied that the incident ever took place.
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California was also first made aware of the allegations back in July but concealed all information relating to them for weeks.

It has since emerged that Ford has a history of left-wing political activism;

– She signed a letter attacking Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy at the U.S.-Mexico border, asserting that it was “violating fundamental human rights”.

– Ford attended a women’s march event and even wore a version of the infamous “***** hat” made to look like a brain.

– Records show that Ford donated to the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Friends Of Bernie Sanders.

– Perhaps in an attempt to hide her motives, Ford scrubbed her social media presence before the allegations came to light.


Despite top Democrats calling for the vote on Kavanaugh to be postponed until Ford’s claims can be properly vetted, the FBI has refused to open an investigation.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley’s (R-Iowa) office also sent out a letter on Friday morning on behalf of 65 women who knew Kavanaugh when he was in high school asserting, “For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect.”

“It’s disturbing that these uncorroborated allegations from more than 35 years ago, during high school, would surface on the eve of a committee vote after Democrats sat on them since July,” a Republican spokesperson for Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley said Sunday. “If Ranking Member Feinstein and other Committee Democrats took this claim seriously, they should have brought it to the full Committee’s attention much earlier.”

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/...170918ford.jpg

Hairy Jello 09-17-2018 07:44 PM

Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination
 
In addition to this chick bein' a documented lib activist/donor/Trump-hater, it looks like there's some history between her parents and kav's mom. Her parents were defendants in a court case that Kav's mother was a judge in.

Brett Kavanaugh’s Mother Presided Over Foreclosure Case Involving Accuser’s Parents

Hairy Jello 09-17-2018 07:50 PM

Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination
 
Looks like Pocahontas is tryin' to use this chick's baseless accusations to raise money.

Elizabeth Warren fundraises off sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh

Quote:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is running a fundraising campaign off decades-old allegations of an attempted sexual assault by President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

Ms. Warren’s Senate campaign issued a plea to supporters Monday praising Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has come forward and detail what she said was Judge Kavanaugh’s attempt to force himself on her while they were both in high school in the 1980s.

“Christine Blasey Ford has done a brave thing in coming forward. She deserves to be heard and treated with respect. Now it’s the Senate’s job to make sure that happens,” the fundraising email says.

Judge Kavanaugh has vehemently denied Ms. Ford’s accusation, and Republicans have raised questions about how much Democrats believe her, given that their top senator on the Judiciary Committee sat on the allegation for six weeks without taking action.

Democratic leaders are now saying they accept her accusations, which she says she never spoke about to anyone until revealing them during therapy in 2012. Ms. Ford also arranged for herself to take a lie detector test which she passed, according to The Washington Post.

Hairy Jello 09-17-2018 09:29 PM

Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination
 
:slapme

KAVANAUGH ACCUSER’S LAWYER: IT’S NOT HER JOB TO CORROBORATE HER STORY

ShivaTD 09-18-2018 09:59 AM

Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pjohns (Post 948896)
Just a few thoughts:

(1) Presumably, next we will be dredging up the fact that Harry has been accused of dipping Sally's pigtails in the inkwell, back in the third grade.

(2) This allegation is, at best, a typical he-said-she-said case--not a provable matter.

(3) The usual principle of innocent until proven guilty has been turned--rather conveniently--on its head. At least, for charges of sexual misconduct.

(4) If Sen. Feinstein were really so concerned about this matter, she could have spoken out long ago. But she waited until maximum damage might be done, before saying anything.

The truth, of course, is that the leftists do not wish to see a 5-4 majority of originalists on the Supreme Court; and they will do whatever they can to stop this from happening.

The politicization of the High Court began with Judge Robert Bork in 1987; and it continues today.

Of course, the Supreme Court was never intended to be a political branch of government; but, sadly, it has become just that.

Just a few thoughts.

(1) There's a significant difference between a sexual assault that can be classified as an attempted rape and "Harry" dipping "Sally's" pigtails in the ink well so we'll discard this issue as being nonsense.

(2) It's no necessarily a typical "he-said-she-said" if both of them are telling the truth based upon what they remember. I'll return to this because that appears to be the most likely conclusion we could end up making based upon what's been reported so far.

(3) The criteria of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in the courtroom in a criminal case. In a civil case preponderance of evidence, and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, exists and in society even a lower standard often applies. But that's for the typical case and we're not talking about a typical case.

We're addressing a Supreme Court Justice that will be receiving a lifetime appointment. Above any suspicion is a more appropriate criteria when it comes to individuals that will wield this type of power for such a long period of time. A Supreme Court Justice arguably needs to meet the highest possible standard of conduct, perhaps even greater than the President that wields more power but for a shorter period of time.

Yes, for the first time in history we're addressing the seriousness of allegations of sexual misconduct that has been historically swept under the rug. Often it can be a "he-said-she-said" case and invariably that was a no-win situation for the person that was a victim of sexual malfeasance and that was wrong. The victim never had a chance in the "he-said-she-said" world where "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" was the criteria. We used the wrong criteria and today we struggle to find a better criteria.

(4) The decision to bring this forward to the public was not Sen. Diana Feinstein's to make. Only the victim, Christine Blasey Ford, has the authority to bring this to the public and Senate's attention because she's the one that's going to suffer from the exposure regardless of what the final outcome is. In contacting Senator Feinstein she place her trust in the integrity of the Senator to keep the information private and we should be able to trust our elected officials. Since first writing she employed an attorney that's worked with her so that she finally decided to come forward and face the wrath of the Republicans that are going to take her down a brutal path in front of the American people during open Judiciary Committee hearings.

The GOP is aptly represented on that committee exclusively by "Old White Men" that have no ability to understand what she went through then or what they'll put her through during her testimony. We saw this when Anita Hill testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Clarence Thomas hearings and the Republican Party hasn't changed one iota on the Senate Judicial Committee. A couple of the GOP Senators are even the same ones that were on the committee when Anita Hill was subjected to their inquisition type interrogation.

No woman would willing want to put themselves in the place of Christine Blasey Ford or Anita Hill and it takes great courage and conviction to do so. We need to always remember that before all else.

But let me address something I mentioned earlier. What if both Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh are both telling to truth to the best of their ability. It can happen and this could very well be the "real truth" that we're looking for.

Apparently based upon statements from Mark Judge, Kananaugh's friend in high school and the other person that Dr. Ford says was in the room, as well as comments in a recently exposed year book, Kavanaugh and Judge were binge drinkers in high school. They would literally drink to the point of oblivion where they didn't know where they were or what they were doing.

I knew people like that in high school and binge drinking became huge on college campuses in the 1970's for those of us old enough to remember. Mark Judge, in a book he wrote, apparently refers to Kavanaugh as being so drunk one time that he didn't know where he was or what he was doing.

The allegation includes the statement that Kavanaugh and his friend were extremely drunk at the time. In fact, assuming the allegation is true, Kavanaugh was so drunk he couldn't even remove her swimsuit and groped her through the swimsuit. If Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were as drunk as Judge claims they were at times it's very easy to believe that they were drunk, that Kavanaugh did engage in a sexual assault that he would never have done sober, and that neither Kavanaugh or Judge can remember the instance at all because they were too drunk at the time to remember.

In this case no one is lying, everyone is telling the truth to the best of their knowledge, and we have an explanation for what occurred.

The question then becomes what should a Senator do about it? It would be a drunken act by a teenage but "drunken" doesn't excuse the attack and being a "teenage" doesn't make the sexual assault disappear from the record.

jimbo 09-18-2018 11:03 AM

Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ShivaTD (Post 949135)
Just a few thoughts.

(1) There's a significant difference between a sexual assault that can be classified as an attempted rape and "Harry" dipping "Sally's" pigtails in the ink well so we'll discard this issue as being nonsense.

(2) It's no necessarily a typical "he-said-she-said" if both of them are telling the truth based upon what they remember. I'll return to this because that appears to be the most likely conclusion we could end up making based upon what's been reported so far.

(3) The criteria of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in the courtroom in a criminal case. In a civil case preponderance of evidence, and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, exists and in society even a lower standard often applies. But that's for the typical case and we're not talking about a typical case.

We're addressing a Supreme Court Justice that will be receiving a lifetime appointment. Above any suspicion is a more appropriate criteria when it comes to individuals that will wield this type of power for such a long period of time. A Supreme Court Justice arguably needs to meet the highest possible standard of conduct, perhaps even greater than the President that wields more power but for a shorter period of time.

Yes, for the first time in history we're addressing the seriousness of allegations of sexual misconduct that has been historically swept under the rug. Often it can be a "he-said-she-said" case and invariably that was a no-win situation for the person that was a victim of sexual malfeasance and that was wrong. The victim never had a chance in the "he-said-she-said" world where "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" was the criteria. We used the wrong criteria and today we struggle to find a better criteria.

(4) The decision to bring this forward to the public was not Sen. Diana Feinstein's to make. Only the victim, Christine Blasey Ford, has the authority to bring this to the public and Senate's attention because she's the one that's going to suffer from the exposure regardless of what the final outcome is. In contacting Senator Feinstein she place her trust in the integrity of the Senator to keep the information private and we should be able to trust our elected officials. Since first writing she employed an attorney that's worked with her so that she finally decided to come forward and face the wrath of the Republicans that are going to take her down a brutal path in front of the American people during open Judiciary Committee hearings.

The GOP is aptly represented on that committee exclusively by "Old White Men" that have no ability to understand what she went through then or what they'll put her through during her testimony. We saw this when Anita Hill testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Clarence Thomas hearings and the Republican Party hasn't changed one iota on the Senate Judicial Committee. A couple of the GOP Senators are even the same ones that were on the committee when Anita Hill was subjected to their inquisition type interrogation.

No woman would willing want to put themselves in the place of Christine Blasey Ford or Anita Hill and it takes great courage and conviction to do so. We need to always remember that before all else.

But let me address something I mentioned earlier. What if both Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh are both telling to truth to the best of their ability. It can happen and this could very well be the "real truth" that we're looking for.

Apparently based upon statements from Mark Judge, Kananaugh's friend in high school and the other person that Dr. Ford says was in the room, as well as comments in a recently exposed year book, Kavanaugh and Judge were binge drinkers in high school. They would literally drink to the point of oblivion where they didn't know where they were or what they were doing.

I knew people like that in high school and binge drinking became huge on college campuses in the 1970's for those of us old enough to remember. Mark Judge, in a book he wrote, apparently refers to Kavanaugh as being so drunk one time that he didn't know where he was or what he was doing.

The allegation includes the statement that Kavanaugh and his friend were extremely drunk at the time. In fact, assuming the allegation is true, Kavanaugh was so drunk he couldn't even remove her swimsuit and groped her through the swimsuit. If Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were as drunk as Judge claims they were at times it's very easy to believe that they were drunk, that Kavanaugh did engage in a sexual assault that he would never have done sober, and that neither Kavanaugh or Judge can remember the instance at all because they were too drunk at the time to remember.

In this case no one is lying, everyone is telling the truth to the best of their knowledge, and we have an explanation for what occurred.

The question then becomes what should a Senator do about it? It would be a drunken act by a teenage but "drunken" doesn't excuse the attack and being a "teenage" doesn't make the sexual assault disappear from the record.

(1) No Shiva this cannot be classified as attempted rape. Not even the lawyer, Di Fi, and the activist are trying to make that claim. At best it's a class 3 or 4 misdemeanor. If the parties involved are within 4 years age difference, (they were) it's probably not even that.

(2) No Shiva, it's not a case of he said, she said if both have different recollections. However, if her accusation is based on her "different" recollection, then this entire metoo is a non starter. You're just saying she's making shlt up based on what she thinks might have happened.

(3) Actually it's innocent till found guilty. Like most 40 year old cases, especially he said she said sexual cases based on no evidence, this will never be proven either way.

Where do you get this "first time in history"? Not even close. Two fairly recent examples: Duke Rugby team. Charlottesville fraternity. Both have similarities. Young kids, groups of well healed kids. Alleged sex misconduct.
Both BTW the boys were found innocent. And any evidence was much newer than 40 years.

(4) Apparently DiFi thought so. Instead of immediately turning this alleged letter over to authorities, she put it into her things I can use later file.

Putting your trust in DiFi is like watching a shark circling and believing he likes the color of your suit and is not actually hungry.

Old white men? Obviously something black won't fit here, so it must be something old white men.

Don't give me that po' me crap regarding Ford. She sent a letter, allegedly, to a Senator 40 years after the fact instead of to the proper authorities 40 years earlier, when it actually mattered. As you say, Senators have no authority to act in rape cases.

No woman wants to put herself in that position? They do it all the time. Hill, Duke, C'ville, Ford, There's 4. I know a HS soccer player who claimed the coach patted her on the ass. 5 years, fifty grand, loss of job later, the court concluded no case. The student just said oh well and suffered no loss. I expect you could find thousands of similar cases if you care to look.

Another relevation. HS kids go to parties. They sometimes they drink. I didn't know that. It certainly didn't happen when I was in high school. We never made passes at the girls either.

The Jimbo assessment: It's Bull Shlt. All of it. The letter was possibly written by the same person as the Opinon piece which was last weeks gotcha. Or maybe by the Rolling Stone writer who wrote the C'ville story. Next week it will be something else. Probably Monday ahead of the this time we really mean it Senate vote. Ford is an active activist. Just her part to further the cause.

So put on your ***** hats. Crawl down to your safe spaces. Don't come out until after 2020. The rest of us, we got work to do. Seating judges, Removing treaties not right for our country. Protecting borders. Winning elections.

Dog Man 09-18-2018 12:31 PM

Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination
 
The guy that Ford said broke them up, has denied that the event ever happened. Case closed!

The woman has a liberal axe to grind, and it will propel her through the ranks of left wing stardom, she has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

Hairy Jello 09-18-2018 12:46 PM

Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dog Man (Post 949145)
The guy that Ford said broke them up, has denied that the event ever happened. Case closed!

The woman has a liberal axe to grind, and it will propel her through the ranks of left wing stardom, she has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

She's lookin' for her own show on MSNBC. Wouldn't be surprised if they gave it to her.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0