Kavanaugh accuser wants a full FBI investigation before she testifies

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: knoxie

Before you open your mouth, maybe you'd better read this first.

imgur.com...

Not Political? - Kavanaugh's Accuser's Attorney Is Vice-Chair Of Soros-Funded Organization That Opposes Kavanaugh

Oh this is rich! Day by day the utter idiocy of this woman is exposed to all but the most blinded and partisan.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: knoxie

Link

Kavanaugh Accuser’s Attorney is Vice Chair of Soros-Funded Organization That Opposes Kavanaugh

Wow! What a coincidence hey? Nothing to see here people it's all just a coincidence lol.

I hope this lying skag is sued for defamation and slander by Kavanaugh and loses absolutely everything and ends up living on the streets.

Make of her such a potent example that this horsecrap ends.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: carewemust
She has agreed to testify this coming Thursday, but only if Kavanaugh goes first.

That's not how it supposed to work. The accuser always goes first. Then the defendant has a chance to respond to the accusations.

So, she does not want to give him a chance to respond afterwards to what she claims?

Why does she deserve special treatment again?

Cause vagina?

Having a vagina means you cannot lie. Cannot deceive. That you are a pure and moral person that must not be questioned in ANY way or have your motives brought into play.

If you have a vagina people should vote for you on that basis alone. If you have a vagina any accusation you make is 100% true regardless of proof or lack thereof.

Wake up bro!

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Grambler

More men need to take up for themselves when they are casually and not so casually accused of such things.

There are a lot of man-haters in the world. The reasons are many and varied, but you can spot them by there flippant nastiness and hyperbolic accusations.

Men are not the creeps these militant hags want women to think they are. Sure, there are some honest-to-gosh molesters, rapists, and creeps out there, but most men are not those things, even when they might take flirtatiousness a little too far. Normal women know how to handle it with finesse and class.

What really irks me to no end is that the official narrative is that it's only women that experience these things.

Every man I know, myself included, has had aggressive sexual advance made towards us, we've all been sexually assaulted and at least 25%of the men I know have woke up with a woman performing some sort of sex act in them.

To be honest I know far more men that have been sexually assaulted than women.

It's the narrative that will not be acknowledged or given credence in wider society. Ever.

The double standard is really getting old and constant screeching "women this" and "women that" is getting really, really old.

Men are getting sick and tired of always being portrayed as the perpetrator and never the victim.

If this #metoo garbage of ruining lives and careers doesn't smarten up the blowback is going to be nasty and long lasting.

As it is now, men I know that work with women absolutely REFUSE to be in a room alone with a woman, refuse to work late with a woman without at least 2-4 other people, wont have meetings alone with women etc etc.

And from what they have said it's not going over well because the lack of trust from the Male co-workers towards their female co-workers is eroding workplace morale and causing issues amongst people.

And to that all I can say is: this is the world that women let be created when they didnt stand up to this garbage and defend their brothers, sons, uncles and fathers from baseless allegations and horrific slander.

What else should men do? I work in a 99% male dominated workforce so I dont have to deal with it but if I worked with females I'd act the same way. As a man in this environment you have to.

Remember when the left mocked and scorned Pence because he said he wouldn't dine alone with a woman that wasn't his wife.

Pence sure looks smart now doesn't he?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Her accusatory letter is not a legal charge, it is evidence.

Exactly the point. There are no charges formally leveled against Kavanaugh. Ergo, there is nothing for him to refute.

For him to have anything to refute, there must first be charges leveled, which would be a testimony by Ford.

TheRedneck

He is welcome to remain silent.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

The issue here is that there is no legal case. No police force or attorney would bring a case based on the accusations.

Vetting people for security clearances or for Federal Judgeships is not a criminal process.

No legal case need be brought.

Simple illegal drug use in High school is disqualifying.

So is Sexual Assault.

Neither must be criminally charged to be disqualifying.

Odd how often you seem conveniently unaware of basic facts.

He has already been vetted several times, including the FBI reviewing the letter, deciding to take no action and just passing it to the Whitehouse.

Background checks are at the direction of the WH.

they need direction in order to follow up.

See Anita Hill.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: soberbacchus


I am amazed that Christine Ford didn't chose the "closed session" testimony. The public isn't voting 'yea' or 'nea'. The Senators are.

Transparency is good and a public eye might keep the GOP Senators from attacking rather than inquiring.

Right

Let see if the democrats inquire Kavanaugh or attack him as well

No no no no. It's not attacking if it's a man. Its merely questioning and trying to get to the bottom of things.

Aside from nothing.

Kavenaugh is going down.

Next Up?

I base this on the level of desperation exhibited by right wing zealots before failure.

WATCH what happens next.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xtrozero


In the end of what outside of what teens typically do...

She wasn't raped

She didn't have stitch of clothing removed or ripped

She didn't have her crotch grab Incorrect

She didn't have her breast fondled Incorrect

She didn't get forced into a kiss

So please explain to me what outside of her feeling discomfort with the situation that basically ended into nothing is the crime...

What is the crime committed in the end?

Are people really going to say a crime was committed with ALL of them drinking etc...
Sick defense. Drinking alcohol does not mean you are free to be attacked, groped, raped etc. without consequence for the perpetrators.
YES crimes are committed against women all the time who have been drinking

I'm just going by her words....

You are not going by ALL of her words.

She gave a detailed interview to the press to extrapolate on the letter she sent.

When she went upstairs to use the bathroom, Ford told the Post that she was pushed into a bedroom.

She said Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed and groped her, trying to remove her clothing and a one-piece bathing suit underneath.

(Mark) Judge stood across the room and both of the boys were laughing "maniacally," Ford said.

When she tried to scream, she said Kavanaugh held his hand over her mouth.

"I thought he might inadvertently kill me," she told the Post. "He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing."

www.cbsnews.com...

Oh yeah I forgot about the attempted murder!

/sarc

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: soberbacchus


I am amazed that Christine Ford didn't chose the "closed session" testimony. The public isn't voting 'yea' or 'nea'. The Senators are.

Transparency is good and a public eye might keep the GOP Senators from attacking rather than inquiring.

Right

Let see if the democrats inquire Kavanaugh or attack him as well

Either way, it should be under the public view, not behind closed doors.
There is no national security interest that would be compromised by vetting a Justice for SCOTUS.

I think it should be open as well, unless she demands her testimony is closed

Her demands to testify are ridiculous though

She has no right to demand that he speak before she does

What good is it to have him respond to accusations he hasn’t heard her fully make under oath?

And her demand Kavanaugh may not have outside counsel question her is also absurd

Imagine being accused of something and not being allowed to question the accuser, and not even being allowed to have your own lawyer question them

It's good for her so they can tailor her testimony around what he said. Perjury trap.

In no way is it ethical to have him testify first. Complete insanity and subversion of due process. But if the last 2 years have taught us anything it's that the left cares not for due process and innocent till proven guilty.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: soberbacchus


I am amazed that Christine Ford didn't chose the "closed session" testimony. The public isn't voting 'yea' or 'nea'. The Senators are.

Transparency is good and a public eye might keep the GOP Senators from attacking rather than inquiring.

Right

Let see if the democrats inquire Kavanaugh or attack him as well

Either way, it should be under the public view, not behind closed doors.
There is no national security interest that would be compromised by vetting a Justice for SCOTUS.

I think it should be open as well, unless she demands her testimony is closed

Her demands to testify are ridiculous though

She has no right to demand that he speak before she does

What good is it to have him respond to accusations he hasn’t heard her fully make under oath?

??????

Kavenaugh has the advantage of being able to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee and meet with them after this hearing. The Judiciary can schedule further hearings or private meetings or closed door hearings with Kavenaugh after Ford has her say.

She only has one appearance. Kavenaugh has as many as he asks for or the committee demands.

She wants Kavenaugh to testify FIRST so he is on record, under oath with whatever denials he gives vs. changing his story to suite her testimony.

He absolutely has the chance to rebut her testimony, but he will testify under oath about this accusation and what he does and does not remember FIRST. If he tells the truth, it doesn't matter. His rebuttal will match his first testimony.

That's not how these things work. In the real world the accused gets a chance to rebut his accuser. How can he answer accusations before he know what the are?

You can't honestly believe this garbage you're peddling can you?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: soberbacchus


I am amazed that Christine Ford didn't chose the "closed session" testimony. The public isn't voting 'yea' or 'nea'. The Senators are.

Transparency is good and a public eye might keep the GOP Senators from attacking rather than inquiring.

Right

Let see if the democrats inquire Kavanaugh or attack him as well

Either way, it should be under the public view, not behind closed doors.
There is no national security interest that would be compromised by vetting a Justice for SCOTUS.

I think it should be open as well, unless she demands her testimony is closed

Her demands to testify are ridiculous though

She has no right to demand that he speak before she does

What good is it to have him respond to accusations he hasn’t heard her fully make under oath?

And her demand Kavanaugh may not have outside counsel question her is also absurd

Imagine being accused of something and not being allowed to question the accuser, and not even being allowed to have your own lawyer question them

No closed door testimony for her. She has engaged in character assassination and defamation in the public square. This is the bed she has made and nothing less than a public hearing for all to see is acceptable.

It's amazing we are 41 pages into this topic that is clearly nothing more than a stall tactic of the left to stall the inevitable confirmation of Kavanaugh until after the midterms.

Nothing more.

How the leftists can't clearly see this means they are either idiotic in their rationalization process or simply shills. Or maybe both.

Lindsey Graham (whom I am not a fan of) said it best:

“you can’t lose the election and pick judges.”

Since Trump rightfully and legally won the White House the left has not stopped with their temper tantrums about how they don't get their way.

Do you people (leftists) not understand how this works?

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Grambler

His defense has infinite time, only limited by how long the GOP led Judiciary committee wants to listen.

How would you like to be grilled over nonspecific nebulous accusations that were not even made under oath?

What are your non-specific concerns?

Did he or did he not push her into a bedroom along with Mark Judge (Who the GOP have refused to subpoena) and jump on top of her and grope her and try to pull her clothing off and cover her mouth when she tried to scream?

Does he need more specifics?

Was there more than one time he did this? He needs it narrowed down?

What don't you understand about an accused having a fundamental right to hear the accusations before giving a response? It's a very simple thing to understand.

How you feel about it or your interpretation of things means next to nothing. Kavs fundamental rights dont get to be usurped based on feelings or political affiliation.

What you are advocating for is some real NKVD/Stasi totalitarian idiocy.

It's also telling that you automatically believe this leftist operative spewing accusations with absolutely no evidence over a man with unquestionable integrity and a superb reputation who despite having hundreds of women work for him in his career has never been accused of any sort of impropriety, sexual advances or other allegations.

In fact it is the complete opposite with women from all walks of life, occupations and race testifying to what a great man he is.

There is literally no reason to attribute any weight to this womans claims other than 1) she's a women so must be believed on that basis alone no matter what, 2) she's a Democrat and he's a Trump appointee.

Both options are equally stupid and exposes the hyper partisan belief structure at play in one example and the raw, unbridled sexism and hatred with the other example.