carlimac

How important is what we did in high school? Kavanaugh accusation

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

You missed my post from yesterday.  Her lawyers accepted that NINTH offer after Grassley said "you have until 2:30PM to accept the invitation to testify on Thursday".  They accepted at 2:35PM.  Diane Feinstein then released a statement last Monday that - "because of the new allegations that came up over the weekend, the Thursday hearing should be postponed".  Grassley, of course, ignored it.  The 8th offer was rejected by Ford because she said she is scared of flying and will have to take the time to drive from California to DC.  She also demanded that she will not talk to anybody else besides committee members, and would not accept questions from lawyers and that Kavanaugh has to be interviewed first.  Grassley offered to fly the committee to California in the 9th offer if necessary.  So, you think she'll show up tomorrow?  We'll see.  They're trying to set up the scene where they can portray the hearing as all these old white men bullying a poor sexually assaulted woman.

I did miss your post from yesterday,, thanks for explaining.  So what are your thoughts on the fact that there are now three accusers?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Accusers 1 and 2 don’t bother me much—I’m willing to hear what they have to say, but at this point I don’t think their stories need much more investigation unless they bring up something novel in their sworn testimonies.

Accuser 3, though . . . Sworn statement, from someone with former “secret” security clearance?  Sounds much more impressive, on the face of it . . . We’ll see.

Accuser 3, though... falls short of naming Kavanaugh as engaging in sexual misconduct.  Only that he was "present".  And she's represented by Avenatti, the creepy porn lawyer.  

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Accuser 3, though... falls short of naming Kavanaugh as engaging in sexual misconduct towards her.  Only that he was "present".  You're a lawyer. 

FIFY. ;) 

October 15, folks . . . October 15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I did miss your post from yesterday,, thanks for explaining.  So what are your thoughts on the fact that there are now three accusers?  

Ford has zero evidence and can't recall much detail that Kavanaugh can counter.  Ramirez is shown in a picture with Kavanaugh taken AFTER her alleged party.  Kavanaugh was standing side by side with her, their sides touching, and she has a big happy smile on her face.  Her best friend denies knowledge of this.

Swetnick doesn't claim she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh.  She claims Kavanaugh was at the party where she was sexually assaulted.  Textbook smear campaign.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

FIFY. ;) 

October 15, folks . . . October 15.

The affidavit doesn't state she was witness of Kavanaugh raping people of know of any incident where Kavanaugh raped people.  She stated "overly aggressive and grabbed them without their consent".  What do you think that means in the MeToo age?   Did you see that tweet from Brie Larson that I posted on the SJW thread where Brie claims she has to defend herself because somebody asked for her phone number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Ford has zero evidence and can't recall much detail that Kavanaugh can counter.  Ramirez is shown in a picture with Kavanaugh taken AFTER her alleged party.  Kavanaugh was standing side by side with her, their sides touching, and she has a big happy smile on her face. 

Swetnick doesn't claim she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh.  She claims Kavanaugh was at the party where she was sexually assaulted.  Textbook smear campaign.

She also said she saw Kavanaugh waiting in a hallway for his turn to sexually assault an inebriated gang-rape victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

She also said she saw Kavanaugh waiting in a hallway for his turn to sexually assault an inebriated gang-rape victim.

Waiting in a hallway for his turn.  Yep.  That will hold up in court as Kavanaugh is a rapist.  That makes that a SMEAR.

Evidence.  Show it.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Ford did not claim it was definitely 1982.  She said... 1982-ish.  That could be anytime between 1981 when Ford started high school through 1983 when Kavanaugh graduated from high school.  That's the convenience of not recalling specifics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Waiting in a hallway for his turn.  Yep.  That will hold up in court as Kavanaugh is a rapist.  That makes that a SMEAR.

Evidence.  Show it.

This isn’t a criminal prosecution, or even a civil action.

It’s a job interview.  

You don’t end an interview and make an offer right when you start hearing stuff you would rather not hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2018 at 5:50 AM, JohnsonJones said:

Considering her background, I'm not sure what to think.  Considering what I've heard of his school and his buddy Mark Judge, I also don't know what to think other than it is plausible and it sounds like Mark Judge and some of his buddies were doing some pretty terrible things back in High School.  I think there are MANY these days that also fall into doing similar things.

The one PROBLEM that stands out to me is the boy who called Wolf.  The Democrats seem to have fallen into this casual accusation approach these days.  If they cannot seem to win by normal means, they win by creating a social pariah of the Republican Candidate.  They will conjure up some individual to make accusations to ruin a candidate's reputation.  Everyone is concerned about it when the accusations arise, but after the Democrats win, no one follows up and no one cares.  This makes it basically a ruse, the boy who called wolf.

We look at this woman's reputation.  It seems like another Democrat ruse.  After it is all done, the Democrats won't follow up, the woman won't really care and will disappear in the woodwork, and Kavanaugh's reputation will still be ruined.

To me, this is despicable.  I don't like the Democrats taking this type of approach to ruin someone's reputation merely for power on their part.  It's against the Democrat Party's (well, what used to be) ethics and moral compass.  It's against their directives.  But it seems a LOT of this has been tossed aside these days.

So, the story is suspect, ESPECIALLY considering who it is coming from and their background and connection to this same ploy of people who call wolf.

The problem is considering who his friends were in High School and the reputation those friend have given that High School from back then (and Murkowski is another whose brother went and who seems to give credence to the stories...and she is one of the few that some think may NOT be favorable to Kavanaugh) is that the story being stated is actually believable.  It could have happened that way.  We've seen a LOT of places where morality among the boys were not that high, and considering the stories that have been written about the High School Kavanaugh went to, and that many were even sourced to one of his good friends...doesn't speak well. 

So, it's a double sided dilemma.  If the Democrats had not resorted to this ploy so much over the past two years it probably wouldn't be such a diliemma, but because they have...it makes it all the much harder to think this is anything more than a deliberate boy crying wolf yet again when there is no real concrete plan to follow up on it other than to trash a candidate reputation for political gain.

I have no pity on her. She is only trying to destroy him for polical reasons. If we allow this we are going to end up with nothing but liberals who have done drugged, raped women and anything else you can think of. We have had a president and many liberal congressmen do far worse and nothing has been done and we accept it. This is so obviously an attempt to delay until the election 

We are being played for fools and it is working. Your husband, father, and sons lives are at risk, I have seen lives ruined and even when proven innocent I saw a school principal destroyed. Liberals would eliminate marriage between a man and a woman. One famous liberal said if a woman has a child ,she was raped twice by her husband.

This literally may be a nightmare she had. If this was true she would not have waited until after the debate was over and even now is focused on delay, delay, delay.

Edited by john4truth
Add to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Ford has zero evidence and can't recall much detail that Kavanaugh can counter.  Ramirez is shown in a picture with Kavanaugh taken AFTER her alleged party.  Kavanaugh was standing side by side with her, their sides touching, and she has a big happy smile on her face.  Her best friend denies knowledge of this.

Swetnick doesn't claim she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh.  She claims Kavanaugh was at the party where she was sexually assaulted.  Textbook smear campaign.

Anatess, since I lack you and JustaGuy's debate skills, and to be honest knowledge of politics, I'm going to bow out, and respond by "liking"  JAGs posts as he says things I wish I would have thought of.  :)  I'll see you in another thread.  

Edited by LiterateParakeet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

So what are your thoughts on the fact that there are now three accusers?

I'm highly curious why the third accuser, theoretically knowing full well that gang rape was serially occurring at the parties, opted to keep going to them. Would you go to a party where you knew you were likely to be gang raped?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm highly curious why the third accuser, theoretically knowing full well that gang rape was serially occurring at the parties, opted to keep going to them. Would you go to a party where you knew you were likely to be gang raped?

A good point, though perhaps not dispositive either way.  Never underestimate the power of individuals to act stupidly, recklessly, or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A good point, though perhaps not dispositive either way.  Never underestimate the power of individuals to act stupidly, recklessly, or both.

Keep in mind...it's' not just her. It's all the girls going to these parties. They's ALL would have to have been stupid, reckless, or both to keep returning to these things.

And...really...a serial gang rape ring where theoretically hundreds of girls were violently raped over a time and no whiff of this? Nothing? The police were never contacted? Really?

Reads like a really bad horror movie.

Non-frickin'-sense.

 

(Note: I'm borrowing a bit from Matt Walsh here.)

 

edit: I have no idea what dispositive means. :D

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Keep in mind...it's' not just her. It's all the girls going to these parties. They's ALL would have to have been stupid, reckless, or both to keep returning to these things.

And...really...a serial gang rape ring where theoretically hundreds of girls were violently raped over a time and no whiff of this? Nothing? The police were never contacted? Really?

Reads like a really bad horror movie.

Non-frickin'-sense.

 

(Note: I'm borrowing a bit from Matt Walsh here.)

 

It starts to make sense if you start to connect it with the media frenzy over the Catholic priests.  I've held this opinion for a while and it has not been proven wrong yet.  They're trying to slowly build a narrative.  Note, Trump's top 2 picks were Kavanaugh and Barrett - both devout Catholic graduates of Catholic Schools.  The field has been prepped for expanding the sexual depravity of Catholic priests to Catholic Schools as a means to smear the characters of these 2 picks.

 

24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

edit: I have no idea what dispositive means. :D

It's latin.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 9/19/2018 at 2:57 PM, carlimac said:

...  He was a teenager at the time and teens do stupid things.  Some want to simply throw him out at the very vague suggestion that he may have been involved in this long ago incident. Seriously?  There is a statute of limitations that would prevent him ever being put in jail. there should be a statute of limitations that prevents this kind of thing ever tangling up a Supreme Court Judge vote. That way  Kavanaugh would have been free to just say, ya, I was a dumb kid back then. I"m sorry it happened. But I'm not that kid any more.  All the other FBI investigations have shown me to be worthy of this position. 

 

Other thoughts?

 

While I understand that the OP is really about the SCOTUS nominee, I just want to remark that upon reading the title I felt to respond that what we did in High School can be very important, especially if what we did was foundational to habits we continue throughout adulthood. Seems to me that this is so whether we're talking transgression, sin, crime, or virtue, praiseworthy example, and making the world a better place. Sometimes after making a foolish mistake I've looked at myself in the mirror and seen the same 17-year old punk I was in high school; and at other times I've realized that I was able (thankfully) to leave childish things behind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm highly curious why the third accuser, theoretically knowing full well that gang rape was serially occurring at the parties, opted to keep going to them. Would you go to a party where you knew you were likely to be gang raped?

I keep hearing this question asked but unfortunately it isn't relevant and doesn't help with Kavanaugh's case. Because the victim is always innocent no matter what she does to bring it on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, carlimac said:

I keep hearing this question asked but unfortunately it isn't relevant and doesn't help with Kavanaugh's case. Because the victim is always innocent no matter what she does to bring it on. 

How can a victim "bring it on"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, carlimac said:

it isn't relevant and doesn't help with Kavanaugh's case

Sure it's relevant and will help -- pending the utter and extreme stupidity of those voting. We know half of them are extreme in their stupidity* already...it only remains to be seen if others buy into the nonsense or not.

*Granted, it's intentionally extreme stupidity for the sake of winning at any cost...and I'm not saying if things were reversed the R's wouldn't be just as intentionally stupid. But the point is that the 49 D votes are irrelevant. We know how they'll go. It's the 2 R votes who we must worry about buying into the nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now