1. The KillerFrogs

FBI and Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Allegations

Discussion in 'Killingsworth Court, Formerly The General Forum' started by gohornedfrogs, Sep 18, 2018.

  1. If you listened to Ford’s testimony and don’t think there’s a moral imperative to fairly investigate her allegation before giving the accused a lifetime, accountability-free job as 1/9 of 1/3 of our entire federal government, then we disagree on a moral issue.
  2. Supreme Court Justices can be impeached, so if actual evidence is presented that proves Kavanaugh actually assaulted anyone or committed a heinous crime outside of drinking in college (oh dear me!) then he can be removed from the court. The point I'm making is that the same individuals who want to burn Kavanaugh without a shred of evidence and proclaim loudly that all accusers be believed are doing the exact opposite when it comes to Ellison. And you're right that these two scenarios are totally different, because Ellison's accuser actually has proof of his abuse.
  3. I would buy this if Ford had some history of partisan hackery, but she doesn’t. I also think you have to keep in mind that Kavanaugh isn’t some law nerd with the nonpartisan record of graduating at the top of his class, clerking, working in big law, getting appointed to district and then appeals courts, and never ruling on anything that controversial. He’s a former republican operative that worked to impeach a democrat president and served as a political appointee in a Republican White House. IMO, the bar for him to show he can be nonpartisan should be even higher than normal as a former operative. Instead he’s gone full-partisan.

    And “the lowest thing” is hyperbolic, right? I mean, even if I conceded that “the democrats” are “doing this” (which I don’t, but for the sake of argument), I can think of a lot of things the parties/politicians have done that are as low or lower than this.
  4. Impeachment prevents an accountability-free job.

    Furthermore, what exactly are we going to investigate? Which of the five different dates do we begin with? Which of the witnesses that all refute Ford's testimony do we put the screws to?

    No location, no witnesses, no-one to corroborate even a change in behavior and her own family isn't backing her with this allegation. Now, that's not to say the FBI still can't uncover something, or someone who has been hiding all this time won't come forward and clear all this up, but as it stands now you can't destroy a man simply because someone says he committed a terrible act 36 years ago with providing a single piece of evidence to support the claim.
  5. So, you’re saying we should always believe the alleged unless a victim meets a criminal conviction standard?
  6. I'm saying we don't go around destroying people's lives because of a story without any evidence that the story is accurate. To believe everyone is telling the truth 100% of the time, or that people's memories are 100% accurate 100% of the time is plain stupid.
  7. Doesn’t seem like hyperbole at all. This accuser was incredible at best. Her recounts were confused and inconsistent. She appeared as convincing only in her emotion. Facts are what’s important. Not emotion. Millions found here unconvincing and her professional questioner deemed her testimony totally unworthy of even a search warrant. Personally I saw her as exactly the partisan she claims not to be. A contrived story, devoid of corroboration and indeed refuted by her own witnesses.
  8. #88 TCUdirtbag, Oct 1, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2018
    Question then, do you think more women lie and make up stories about sexual assault or more men lie and deny when alleged

    Question two, then: do you really think BK’s life is being “ruined”? He is voluntarily seeking a lifetime office of highest public trust. His fallback plan is lifetime tenure as a federal appellate judge. Has he not willingly held himself out for this? Do you really think the allegation is baseless and there’s no grounds for skepticism of his position? There is evidence. There is victim testimony. There is someone else allegedly in the room who wrote a whole book about the alleged attacked getting blackout drunk and not knowing what he was doing. There are calendar entries that show drinking in the timeframe of the attack. There are yearbook entries that show a culture of heavy drinking. There are classmates claiming his tendency to drink heavily and get aggressive. It’s sexual assault and everyone was drunk. The most reasonable conclusion is it’s entirely possible it happened and he was too hammered to remember. But she wasn’t. And he’s told lots of little lies to cover a big one he isn’t sure about. And instead of owning up to it he launched into a partisan attack to get a job he wants.

    BK isn’t entitled to a seat on the Court. There is plenty of time to ram another nominee through before the midterms or before the end of the lame duck. This whole episode is just such a stupid field to die on.
  9. When was the last time a Supreme Court Justice was impeached? It’s not going to happen. It is essentially an accountability-free job. Don’t be ridiculous.

    Please look up the word “refute.” Apply to the statements. Find enlightenment as to the wrongness of the last sentence.

    There is an approximate location and there are 3 witnesses.

    Both untrue.

    How is not getting a promotion “destroying” someone’s life? Give me a scheissing break. Merrill Garland’s life wasn’t destroyed by a nakedly partisan refusal to give him a promotion.

    Your arguments lack a basic understanding of words and the facts. What a Fox News brainwashed farcical world you’re living in.
  10. The issue is how many women lie about sexual assault but the fact that some do makes the whole "we must believe all accusers" such a dangerous position and nothing short of a return to the days of witch trails based on nothing more than a simple allegation.

    He's lost his class at Harvard due to pressure by students and alumni, his daughter has been attacked, even the ACLU has now compared him to Wienstein. Do you honestly think Democrats and the rabid #MeToo movement will simply let him go back to the DC court quietly?

    I'm game, what evidence is there that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted anyone? Allegations from a potential victim isn't enough to even move forward with a civil case, and all of the witnesses have denied the party even happened. So, who has corroborated Ford's allegations?

    And yet no one has seen this book. Until it comes out that is nothing more than rumor. Evidence is required to ruin a man, or at least it used to be required.

    And yet he never claimed he didn't drink, only didn't get blacked out drunk, which is an account that has been backed up by his closest friends and suite mates at Yale. However, drinking does not equal sexual assault. Even tossing ICE at someone in a bar does not mean he sexually assaulted anyone. (BTW who in the world puts ice in their beer?)

    The most reasonable conclusion is no one knows the truth, but none of the witnesses Ford has pointed to can back up her story, her family has said they can't back up her accounts, and her own testimony has changed multiple times from when she first told her therapist to today. A more honest conclusion is that she may have well been assaulted but there is no evidence, proof, or corroborating witness testimony to even place Kavanaugh near Ford during the summer of 82 much less make a credible accusation of sexual assault.

    No it's not a stupid field to die on. This is a major shift in how society handles accusations and as a father of a son I fear for him one day being falsely accused by some women and have his life ruined without so much of a single thread of evidence to support the allegations.
  11. Which witness claims her behavior changed in the summer of 82? Which witness hasn't said the party didn't happen? Her friend specifically said she didn't even remember Kavanaugh, and if that alone doesn't rise to the level of refuting the accusation I don't know what does. Oh, but of course Ford threw her under the bus claiming medial issues, so we should ignore her own friend and witness. But that still leaves absolutely no one she can point to during that time that can corroborate her accusation, not one. Sure, 30 years later she told her therapist and husband, albeit in a vague story that has changed over time, but those are hardly witnesses that can be called on by the FBI or any investigator to corroborate events from the summer of 82, or 85, or whenever this alleged attack took place.
  12. Why must this be a binary choice? To the best of my knowledge, nobody outside of the T_D trolls or 4chan losers have accused Dr. Ford of "lying". There's an absolutely reasonable that both Ford and Kavanaugh are being truthful, that something happened to Ford but it wasn't Kavanaugh, or that something happened between Kavanaugh and Ford that the latter misinterpreted or misremembered. Or, as you said, it's possible Kavanaugh was too inebriated to remember an assault that did take place. None of these involve "lying".

    Dr. Ford does not need to be lying in order for her testimony to be wrong. Ditto for Kavanaugh. It's not a binary choice.

    Garland was denied a position due to political gamesmanship and partisan hackery. Kavanaugh would be denied a position because of an accusation of a most serious crime. His relationship with his wife, daughters, and the public in general would be irreparably changed. It's ridiculous to pretend that this is not the case, or that a rejection of Kavanaugh would be in any way analogous to the stall-out of Garland, or that the damage to the reputation of Kavanaugh wouldn't have a major impact on his life going forward.

    This tendency to try and make the EXTREME leap between "he liked to get his booze on" and "that proves sexual assault" is horrifying. You would absolutely NEVER accept a comparable causal link for any number of behaviors that are similarly unrelated ("We know he's Muslim, therefore he's a terrorist", for example). That would, correctly, be rejected as entirely unrelated and not in any way proof of a crime. Yet here you are making similarly unproven links with regards to drinking / sexual assault. It's really quite offensive.

    This all assuming the allegations of "heavy drinking" are correct, when even that is largely unsubstantiated and the best you can do is "We know he drank beer". Which yeah, shocker, 17 year olds sometimes snuck beers.
  13. I'm fine with running a proper.

    What I'm not fine with is bad-faith partisan nonsense like sitting on a request for two months, or pushing for an FBI investigation in an attempt to push the confirmation vote past the mid-terms (at which point they will argue that it's inappropriate for a lame-duck session to confirm a lifetime appointment). That's not a moral objection, that's a reaction to partisan nonsense, no different than the Garland stuff.

    Look at it this way, the investigation is supposed to last a week. That means either Friday or next Monday it will be completed. Do you have any doubts that by Friday or next Monday, should they not find anything substantial, the refrain from Democrats will be either "The investigation was not thorough enough, they didn't have enough time" or "Any allegation casts a pall over the entire nomination and we should do better for our higher courts"?

    Of, if by Friday they don't find anything substantial, will you accept that conclusion and have no objection to a confirmation vote?
  14. You’re just denying truths as a basis for your conclusions. You are too blinded by your partisanship or patriarchical views to seek truth. Good luck out there in the world.
  15. #95 TCUdirtbag, Oct 2, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2018
    You’re making some huge leaps from what I said in your post. Sorry you’re “offended” by things I didn’t actually say?
  16. #96 TCUdirtbag, Oct 2, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2018

    The part I’ve bolded is a GOP talking point that is not based in any truth. It is a partisan line to put Kavanaugh on the Court. It is, at best, a gross misrepresentation of reality and at worst an outright and purposeful lie.

    This wasn’t some grand scheme. Feinstein could never pull one of those off. The accuser came forward BEFORE the nomination and took much convincing to come forward. Let us not forget how much Kavanaugh paperwork the GOP Senate refuses to wait to review to rush this nomination through. Or that McConnell didn’t want him to be the nominee for the very reason that there should’ve been a huge paper trail to review. There wasn’t no bad-faith sitting around to delay at the 11th hour.

    Next, the Democrats are incredibly unlikely to win the senate. They have to hold MT, ND, IN, MO, WV, FL, and NJ, among others, AND pick up at least 2 (+ match any lost from the prior list) from NV, AZ, TN and TX. It is incredibly unlikely that happens.

    Next. No Democratic Senator thinks McConnell would not confirm a nominee in a lame duck session. He broke from a couple centuries of precedent and held a seat open for nearly a year for purely partisan purposes. Everyone knows he will fill that seat before January, no matter what happens in November. Period. So we can drop this farcical argument about democrats’ supposed bad faith motive.

    I think there will be a mix. But these will have been brought about by McConnell’s clear indication that the outcome of the investigation doesn’t matter. And the White House’s initial limits on its scope have tarnished it. So yeah, you’ll hear that from some Dems. But they don’t need Dems to hold a vote or put him on the Court, so what does it matter what the democrat senators say?

    I probably won’t accept the conclusion but I have no objection to holding a vote. I have an objection to senators casting a vote to confirm.
  17. I'm really not though. The sections I quoted clearly appear to try and draw a link between drinking--->blackout drinking---> sexual assault. 1 to 2 is rumor, 2 to 3 is a ridiculous assertion to try and make.

    First, it's comedy to accuse someone is spitting out talking points when, in this thread alone, you've dropped the "he'll be fine", "it's a job interview not a criminal investigation", "credible accusation", etc talking points straight from the DNC.

    ...or maybe it's possible those are your own opinions that just happen to line up with those Democrat talking points? I'd extend you that courtesy and ask the same.

    Second, it's 100% wrong to say that it's not based on any truth. Feinstein had that accusation for months, prior to the initial Kavanaugh hearing. True or false? That's true. It is claimed it was kept secret to protect anonymity....and then was leaked AFTER the confirmation hearings and forcing another round of hearings, and then another week delay for an investigation.

    As for what happens next, my prediction about the Democrat response to the upcoming conclusion of the FBI background check, I'll be happy to be proven wrong. I doubt it though, I think the above will be the go-to line. We'll have to wait and see on that, I guess.
  18. There you go again trying to move the goalposts on your own claims. No one denies that a congressman passed on Ford’s letter to Feinstein in July. You said she “sat” on it as “bad faith partisan nonsense” - which, as I said, is not grounded in any fact whatsoever. The opposite in fact. The accuser wished to remain anonymous and her own attorney eventually leaked the accusation and she elected to come forward. As set forth above, this was intended to delay a vote for the purpose of investigating the allegation or getting a new nominee. But no one, repeat, no one, believes for a second that the seat won’t be filled by a very conservative jurist before January.
  19. EDIT: You edited after I responded, sorry. I do not have an edit button:
    No, it wasn't a grand scheme, it's grasping at straws. It's a Hail Mary, not particularly different from delaying a Garland hearing until after an election they were unlikely to win.
    Yep, I agree that it's unlikely, but it's not impossible (538 has it basically 66/33). Given the option of guaranteed Kavanaugh vs. probably-Kavanaugh-but-slim-chance-our-guy, Democrats clearly would rather have the latter.

    McConnell doesn't have the votes for confirm Kavanaugh right now, with moderates like Flake, McCaskill, and Collins in play, among others. It's entirely reasonable to suggest that those same moderates would be unwilling to confirm during a lame-duck session.

    This doesn't make sense. The unlikelihood of success does not negate the likelhood that it was political gamesmanship that got us to this point. It clearly was.

    I mean, there you have it. If you're unwilling to accept the conclusion of an FBI Investigation, then why the call for the investigation that you are unwilling to accept the conclusions of anyway?
    gohornedfrogs likes this.
  20. You are assuming a level of credibility to Feinstein that she has shown, time and again, not to deserve. I don't believe for a second that
    If she wished to remain anonymous, then quite frankly the allegation ends there and there's nothing more to discuss. Everyone has a right to face their accuser, and under no circumstances should anyone accept ANY confirmation being derailed based on an anonymous allegation. Once she came forward, then fair enough, but the timing of that, and the "leak" of her identity, after the hearings were completed should raise some eyebrows. You might accept that as coincidence, I simply don't give ANYONE in Washington, Republican or Democrat, that benefit of the doubt.

    I don't think this is true. I think everyone accepts this as the most likely outcome, but the Democrats are trying every move they can possibly make to avoid that outcome. The stakes are simply too high for them not to.

    And that's fine, that's politics, but let's call it what it is.

Share This Page