1. The KillerFrogs

FBI and Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Allegations

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

  1. Check to see if the edit button pops up now.
  2. What truths? Can you name one single witness that has corroborated her accusation? What evidence is there to support the allegation?
  3. Still nothing. I think if you look at my account you might see why, I'd say you can PM me but...I don't have those either.

    2013 was rough on us all.
  4. There you go yet again, putting words in my mouth. Once again, that is not at all what I said. I said I don’t support casting a vote to confirm. NOT that I’m unwilling to accept an FBI report.

    I don’t support casting a vote to confirm because (1) he perjured himself in his DC Circuit Court confirmation hearing, (2) holds views I don’t agree with, and (3) proved himself incapable of being a fair judge last Thursday. To me, any of those is enough without the outcome of the FBI investigation.
  5. You said “no evidence.” Her testimony is evidence. Period. End of story. This is my whole point. You don’t dismiss victim testimony in a criminal case as “not evidence.”

    Corroborating evidence include his own testimony which goes to his character (lying about his drinking habits, social life, etc.). Her friend has NOT, as you claim, “refuted” her allegation. Mark Judge has NOT publicly testified under oath. These are basic facts in this case that you refuse to accept in your arguments.
  6. When asked if you would accept an FBI investigation that clears Kavanaugh, you said:
    So how am I putting words in your mouth?

    Your reasons for not wanting Kavanaugh confirmed are fine, but you must realize that those points alone are insufficient to get enough Republicans to cross party lines and reject the nomination. Only the sexual assault allegations can do that.
  7. On lookback, I agree that the post you quoted (though you cut the context) would probably lead many to the understanding you laid out. Now, I feel pretty sure you know what I meant especially with my response above, but disingenuousness is fine. I will further clarify here: I will accept the conclusion that the FBI reaches based on and in the context of the scope of the FBI’s investigation. I have no problem with that. What I will not accept, is the FBI’s report as a final determinant as to the rightness or wrongness of casting a vote for kavanaugh as there are other reasonable objections, as I laid out. I also do not disagree with you that the swing votes will likely be determined solely based on the findings of the FBI.

    I would also quibble with the statement that the FBI will reach “conclusions.” I believe it is more accurate to say they will produce a document setting forth their “findings.” Apparently the senate will not officially release that document. Which means both sides will shamelessly leak misleading snippets. So brace for that.
  8. I never said her testimony wasn't considered evidence—if we're back to arguing criminal law—but the fact that her own testimony has not been consistent, she hasn't provided key details, and the witnesses she has named do not corroborate her (current) version of events means that her testimony is not credible to use on its own to destroy a man's life. Furthermore, Kavanagh has not lied about his drinking habits or social life, he has people who knew him and socialized with him that have come forward to corroborate his testimony and comments concerning never drinking to the point of blacking out. However, his college partying has nothing to do with Ford's allegation so conflating the two is nothing more than an effort to shift the goal posts. As far as the Rameriez allegation, again her testimony is in worse shape than Ford's as she elicited advice and information from people she attended Yale with to see if perhaps anyone recalled if it was Kavanagh that exposed himself to her, and by her own account it took her days of consulting with her legal team before she could say it was. I'm sorry, but that is hardly a credible testimony or allegation worthy of destroying a man's life.

    My point isn't to say Kavanagh never did any of the things he's accused of, I have no idea if he did and neither do you. However, the evidence and allegations have not risen to the level worthy of labeling him a serial rapist, pedophile, or sexual abuser.
  9. My God...I hate when arguments devolve into name-calling and pettiness, especially when I'm the culprit, but you are, by far, the most condescending and smug person I've ever seen on this board. Considering the likes of Fiesty, PFC and Newfoundland Frog, that is quite an accomplishment.
  10. Yes. 1) The left has trouble acknowledging the truth and letting things go. 2) Morality is relative to the left. Harassing people as they try to enjoy dinner with their family is acceptable as long as your message is heard. Whether he gets the nomination or not, he'll never be able to avoid harrassment from the left.
  11. You have claimed repeatedly that there is “no evidence”

    Please cite conflicting testimony

    To point out the obvious, his life is NOT being “destroyed” by the allegation

    Lolllll okay

    Lolll look at something other than Fox/Breitbart. His character witnesses are dropping like flies and publicly and privately revoking their support because yes he has lied repeatedly under oath about his drinking habits.

    Kavanaugh is the one who preemptively issued a blanket denial of ever having blacked out. No one led him there - be isaues the statement on his own. So yes, it is relevant to his credibility and no it’s not shifting the goal posts. He did that all on his own.

    Will agree she hasn’t shown her allegation to be credible.

    I haven’t seen any reasonable person label him a serial rapist or pedophile so this statement is just an attempt to distract with shock and awe.
  12. If you’re going to hurl feces look in the mirror. It goes both ways. Don’t paint the left with a tiny minority of awful people on the fringe and I won’t paiunt the right with Westboro Baptist Church and the equally tiny minority of awful people on that fringe as well.
  13. Hmm...one is trying to kill a child...the other is trying the manicotti. What did pasta ever do to you?
  14. So, the right to eat at a farm to table restaurant without should be protected but not other rights if you don’t like them. (Also 97% of women that walk into a PP aware seeking non-abortion services from STI testing to mammograms, contraception, etc., so long as we’re dealing in facts)
  15. It's odd to me that you would refer to this as disingenuous. I initially posted the full quote, and only after you said it was not what you said did I post the specific phrase in isolation. This was not being disingenuous, it was an attempt to clarify.

    OK, that's fair enough. I understand that your position on Kavanaugh extends beyond the veracity of Dr. Ford's allegation.

    Hm, I'm not so sure. Flake, Murkoski, and Collins all appeared ready to, as did Democrat Manchin. Even once the allegations came out, they all appeared to be ready to confirm until the late push for a week-long delay. Barring some damning revelation in the FBI investigation, I'm pretty sure all are ready to confirm.

    I'm sure that there will be political spin, and we will all become accustomed to the difference between an investigation "refuting" an allegation vs "failing to confirm" an allegation.
  16. Do you have any idea of the level of irony in this statement?
  17. Your entire argument falls apart when you acknowledge the words of Chuck Schumer, the highest ranking Democrat in the Senate, made just hours after Kavanaugh was announced as the nominee:

    “I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have, and hope a bipartisan majority will do the same. The stakes are simply too high for anything less.” — July 9 at 9:23 PM.

    He has certainly followed through on that threat...
    morterforker likes this.
  18. This is exactly what I meant by the remaining swing votes coming down to the contents of the FBI report.
  19. My bad, I totally misread that and didn't see the "not". Clearly hadn't had enough coffee yet this morning. We're on the same page now.
  20. I certainly understand how it would appear that way to people who deny readily observable truths.

    Lol okay. This is a stupid argument to back up unfounded conspiracy theories and false political lines on the right but feel free to pass the foil hats kool aid around make it.

Share This Page