Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 13, 14, 15  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 15
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1161
Reputation: 118.5
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

American Politics section and you keep on spouting nonsense about GP Morin?

Wow.
Anyhow...
Bugs wrote:
He's just fulla <shit> correct information :)
.
Quote:

If he's satisfied with the operation of the Courts and police during the Guy Paul Morin fiasco,

Never said I was, and I wasnt. Comprehension is so poor on your part I can say Bananas and you'll come back with Spain. Try to get it together will you?
Quote:
There was someone who committed this crime, and they got away with it because those involved in the apprehension and conviction blew it. Big time.

Congrats ! You got something right ! Woot!!
Quote:

They tried to frame him with fibre evidence

Oh no...
She had been in the vehicle, ergo fibres.

Quote:

It's not America.

Yup, so true. If it were, GPM probably would be dead.

Oh wait...you meant that as a compliment to American authorities . <facepalm>

And now lets get back to American Politics stuff.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8931
Reputation: 294.8
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( it would seem that if this woman doesn't testify or provide some evidence to back up her claim that this story is likely to die and Kavanaugh will be put up for a vote regardless .
although it might give some democrats a reason to vote against him , there was a couple who appeared poised to vote for him as there from red states but who might now vote against )



Kavanaugh opposition loses steam as his accuser balks at testifying



Howard Kurtz By Howard Kurtz | Fox News



Kurtz: Anita Hill to Christine Ford, a huge cultural shift

'MediaBuzz' host Howard Kurtz weighs in on the cultural and news media shift from Anita Hill's testimony to today's pending testimony with Christine Ford against Brett Kavanaugh.

After the nation was riveted by the Senate testimony of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court nomination came to a vote.


Democrats controlled the Senate. Joe Biden had chaired the hearings.

And yet Thomas was confirmed, with 11 Democrats joining 41 Republicans to provide the margin of victory (and two Republicans voting against him).


That would be inconceivable today. The hyperpartisan nature of today’s politics would never allow so many Democrats to defect in favor of a Republican president's nominee, one who was not only extremely conservative but had faced a last-minute accusation of sexual harassment.

With Brett Kavanaugh's nomination now on the line after an eleventh-hour charge of long-ago sexual assault, it's become a cliché to say that America is a very different place than it was back in 1991. Indeed, it's a very different place than in 1998, when most Democrats stuck by Bill Clinton despite numerous sex scandals, including his affair with a White House intern.

The cultural landscape now includes Bill Cosby (who is being sentenced next week) and a #MeToo Movement that has cost powerful men their jobs in Hollywood, media, Silicon Valley and many other businesses and walks of life. With more female office-holders, there is an automatic presumption that women making such accusations are entitled to a fair hearing.

That's why Christine Blasey Ford, who came forward with a harrowing tale of what she called attempted rape when she and Kavanaugh were high school students, posed such a grave threat to the judge's confirmation.

But in the last day or so, that threat seems to be deflating.

When Republicans invited Ford to a hearing next Monday, she had a prime opportunity to make her case. A credible appearance, even with Kavanaugh's steadfast denials, would have made it difficult for at least some GOP senators to approve him for the high court.

But Ford, after saying through her lawyer she was willing to testify, is balking. She is balking even though Chuck Grassley offered her the option of testifying in a private session (though that would lessen the public impact of her appearance). And that is taking the air out of the Kavanaugh opposition.

Even Mika Brzezinski, the MSNBC liberal and women's rights advocate, said yesterday that if Ford won't testify, "you have to wonder what the Republicans are supposed to do except demand a vote ... This is something that happened in high school. This is going to need her voice. There's no other way around it. No one can do it for her, as miserable as that may be."

Across the political spectrum, National Review's David French agreed:

"It is of course extraordinarily difficult for any person to face cross-examination. It's even more difficult when facing examination based on memories so painful and so far in the distant past." But, he said, it is crucial to our system of justice.

Now I get why this is so daunting for Christina Ford. She has, according to The New York Times, gotten death threats, moved out of her house, away from her kids, and is "essentially in hiding." She has gotten a ton of online abuse, along with plenty of support. It's a sad spectacle that underscores why she was reluctant to go public in the first place.

But for Ford to insist on an FBI investigation before she appears, whether you agree with that or not, is overplaying her hand. It turns what had been an alleged tale of moral outrage into a process story. Now we're down to Grassley offering to send a team to interview Ford in California. Maybe she's just getting cold feet.

Some minor developments aren't helping her case. Mark Judge, the Kavanaugh friend named by Ford as having joined Kavanaugh in the assault at a party (and who has acknowledged being a teenage alcoholic), has denied being at the party or involved in any such assault.

A woman named Cristina King Miranda wrote on Facebook that she knew Ford and Kavanaugh in high school and that "the incident was spoken about for days afterwards in school. Kavanaugh should stop lying." But that contradicts Ford's account that she told no one for 30 years—and Miranda quickly deleted the post. ("I will not be doing anymore [sic] interviews. No more circus," she tweeted yesterday.)

Patrick J. Smyth, who attended Georgetown Prep with Kavanaugh, said in a statement that he understands he is the person identified by Ford as "PJ" who was supposedly present at the party: "I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh." It is not clear why he believes that Ford named him.

All this dramatizes how hard it is to prove a 36-year-old allegation without witnesses, without an address, and without at least an approximate date. And without Ford's testimony, that is very likely where it will remain.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....fying.html
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5861
Reputation: 286.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just by chance I was checking out some sciency stuff about memory. It isn't even very good right after events, as when police collect evidence from onlookers. If a few people observe the same event, and are interviewed separately, there will almost certainly be important conflicts.

But if it gets stored away for years, forget it. It isn't simply that you forget ... it's more likely that you will remember parts and forget other parts, so the memory is (at best) a fragment of what happened. But it also distorted, and affected by talking to others.

From what I saw, there is almost no chance that two or four people who were at that party and saw the 'action' would remember it the same way. The problem is people 'fill in' what they don't actually recall, and so on. Also, frightening things become distorted over time.

In other words, it's entirely to be expected that these memories should be garbled. On both sides. It's entirely possible that some bit of horseplay actually happened, but it was something very different for her than the boys.

What is harder to get a grip on -- she claimed that she forgot about it for 30 years and it only bubbled to the surface in a couples counselling session she was in. I don't know if this qualifies as a 'recovered memory' or not -- but those are the most dubious of all.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8931
Reputation: 294.8
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the accuser now appears willing to speak , however it will likely be under her terms and more than likely in private sometime next week )


Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford opens door to testifying next week




Gregg Re By Gregg Re | Fox News



Christine Ford, the California professor accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday that she “would be prepared to testify next week" -- apparently dropping her bid for the FBI to first launch a new inquiry.


According to an email sent by her attorney Debra Katz and first obtained by The New York Times, Ford would appear as long as senators provide “terms that are fair and which ensure her safety." Fox News has also obtained the email.

“As you are aware, she has been receiving death threats, which have been reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and she and her family have been forced out of their home,” the email continued. “She wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.”


Senate Republicans had invited Ford to testify at a hearing on Monday, and gave her a Friday deadline to indicate whether she would attend.

A Monday hearing still appears unlikely, though.

In the letter Thursday, Ford's attorney wrote that it “is not possible" for Ford to testify on Monday. She added that "the Committee’s insistence that it occur then is arbitrary in any event.”


Ford's openness to testifying threatened to once again upend Kavanaugh's confirmation process. Senate Republicans had said that if Ford stuck to her apparent refusal to testifiy, they would have moved forward with a vote on Kavanaugh on Wednesday. That vote is now in doubt.

However, the attorneys concluded: "Her strong preference continues to be for the Senate Judiciary Committee to allow for a full investigation prior to her testimony. "


Analysts: Some red-state Democrats may see the Kavanaugh allegations as cover to oppose Trump's nominee; reaction on 'Outnumbered.'

Late Tuesday, Ford's lawyers strongly suggested she would testify only if the FBI first conducted a "full investigation."



Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, pushed back sharply on that request, writing in a letter that it was not the FBI's “role to investigate a matter such as this" and that the agency already had reviewed the allegations and supplemented its background check of Kavanaugh.


And in a series of tweets earlier Thursday, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee noted they had obtained statements, under penalty of felony, from three people at the house party where the alleged assault occured, including Kavanaugh, his friend Mark Judge, and another individual. Fox News has learned that Kavanaugh provided his statements under oath, opening him to potential perjury liability if he were lying.

Committee members also wrote that they had reached out to a "fourth person allegedly at the party," as well as "a schoolmate who claimed on social media this week to have info related to Dr. Ford’s allegations" -- but had not heard back.


http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....-week.html
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8931
Reputation: 294.8
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( there is also a lot of questions about her ? many are asking why did she take a lie detector test in august and hire a lawyer at the time if she had no intentions of going public ? her actions seem very odd for someone who didn't want to go public .

it seems like she was preparing for this firestorm back in august and wanted to be ready with a good lawyer and a lie detector test to back up her claim

there is also yet to emerge a single living witness who can back up her claim or who admits being at this party on the day in question )




Inconsistencies emerge in Kavanaugh accusations, with hearing in doubt




Alex Pappas By Alex Pappas | Fox News



Is Brett Kavanaugh guilty until proven innocent?

Fox News contributor Lisa Boothe on whether the #MeToo movement has made it impossible for someone to clear their name in the court of public opinion.

Christine Blasey Ford's allegation that Brett Kavanaugh tried to force himself on her when they were teens has thrown his Supreme Court nomination into doubt. But as senators spar over the terms for a new hearing which may or may not happen, inconsistencies in the story have emerged that could embolden Kavanaugh's defenders.


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has given Ford until Friday morning to say whether she will testify next week. Ford first aired her accusations in a Washington Post story over the weekend but has not spoken publicly about them since. Absent another statement or appearance, questions about the account have swirled on Capitol Hill.

"There are an awful lot of questions, inconsistencies, gaps, and that's why to be fair to both, we need to know what happened," Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a key Republican vote, told reporters this week.


Among those are therapist notes from 2012 that Ford gave to the Washington Post to corroborate her claim. Those notes, though, reportedly say four boys – not two, as Ford claims -- were in the room during the alleged incident. Ford told the newspaper this was an error by the therapist.

Ford, who has acknowledged she can’t remember some details from the incident decades ago, has said she was reluctant to come forward and only did so because her hand was forced by the media.


Christine Blasey Ford has publicly accused Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago. A look at what she is saying and how top lawmakers are responding.

“As you know, earlier this summer, Dr. Ford sought to tell her story, in confidence, so that lawmakers would have a fuller understanding of Brett Kavanaugh’s character and history,” Ford’s attorneys wrote in a letter to the Judiciary Committee this week. “Only after the details of her experience were leaked did Dr. Ford make the reluctant decision to come forward publicly.”



But that claim of reluctance has raised questions about why Ford hired a well-known sexual harassment attorney and took a polygraph test ahead of time if she wasn’t prepared to make the public allegation.

“If Ms. Ford really did not want to come forward, never intended to come forward, never planned to come forward, why did she pay for a polygraph in August and why did she hire a lawyer in August if she never intended to do what she is doing?” South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said on Fox News this week.


Graham on Kavanaugh Allegation

Meanwhile, those named by Ford as being present at the party in question in the 1980s have denied the allegations. That includes Kavanaugh, who has emphatically denied the claim, and Mark Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh’s named by Ford who disputes the claims and says he wasn’t at the party in the question.

Another former classmate of Kavanaugh denied having any knowledge of the party or allegations.


"I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Patrick Smyth said in a letter to the Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."

Fueling more curiosity was a supposed former classmate of Ford who posted a statement on Facebook this week saying the “incident did happen” and it was “spoken about for days” afterwards “in school.”



Lawmakers speak out after Sen. Grassley gives Dr. Ford a deadline to respond to the committee's invitation to testify on her accusations against Brett Kavanaugh; Mike Emanuel reports from Capitol Hill.
Video


Rhetoric flies in DC as Kavanaugh accuser faces deadline

But the post came under scrutiny because of Ford’s previous statements that the alleged incident occurred during the summer – and not during the school year – and that she didn’t discuss it with anyone until counseling with a therapist in 2012.

The classmate who posted the statement, Cristina King Miranda, eventually deleted the post on Wednesday, and clarified that, “I do not have firsthand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine.”

She later told NPR: "That it happened or not, I have no idea. I can't say that it did or didn't."

Ford’s legal team, meanwhile, has given differing statements about whether Ford is willing to testify. On Thursday afternoon, it was reported Ford had re-opened discussions with Republicans to testify.

During television appearances on Monday, Ford’s attorney Debra Katz indicated her client was willing to testify before the committee under oath.

But later in the week, after the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee invited Ford to testify on Monday in public or private, Ford’s attorneys said she wants the FBI to investigate the claims first – something Republicans reject and the bureau is not at this point expected to do.

All along, though, plenty of fellow alumni and Democratic lawmakers have voiced support for Ford, with Senate Democrats urging the majority to hit pause on the process.

"Dr. Ford’s call for the FBI to investigate also demonstrates her confidence that when all the facts are examined by an impartial investigation, her account will be further corroborated and confirmed," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., tweeted.

Members of Ford's family also released a statement Thursday offering "full support."


Despite conflicting details, senators on both sides of the aisle seem to recognize the intense pressure Ford is under. Hazy details about an episode decades ago may be expected and inconsistencies, by themselves, don't delegitimize her claims. One factor may be the abrupt and intense response -- some positive, but also some very negative -- that Ford has faced.

“She has been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats,” Katz and another lawyer, Lisa Banks, wrote. “As a result of these kind of threats, her family was forced to relocate out of their home.”

Her attorneys said she is open to “reasonable steps as to how Dr. Ford can cooperate while also taking care of her own health and security.”

President Trump said Wednesday he hopes Ford appears before the committee.

“If she shows up, that would be wonderful,” Trump said. “If she doesn't show up, that would be unfortunate.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....doubt.html
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8931
Reputation: 294.8
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( in bizarre news a democratic senator was planning to hold a fundraiser with the accusers lawyers . so obviously they are well known democrats in Washington )


Dem Sen. Baldwin announces, then cancels fundraiser with Kavanaugh accuser's lawyers




Alex Pappas By Alex Pappas | Fox News



Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin (left) and attorneys Debra Katz (middle) and Lisa Banks (right).


Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin (left) and attorneys Debra Katz (middle) and Lisa Banks (right). (Official photo/kmblegal.com )

Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s campaign on Thursday invited supporters to a fundraiser next month with the two attorneys representing Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford, according to an invitation obtained by Fox News -- only to abruptly cancel those plans after they became public.


The two attorneys, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks, have been in the news advocating on Ford’s behalf and negotiating with Senate Republicans about whether Ford will testify on her allegations. The nominee has denied sexually assaulting Ford in high school.

“Please Join Debra Katz, Lisa Banks and End Citizens United for Cocktails and Conversation with U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) to support her re-election campaign,” read the invitation, which Fox News received from two separate sources.


But the Baldwin campaign told Fox News that Katz and Banks are no longer “involved in the event,” saying the fundraiser was scheduled before Ford made the allegations.

The fundraiser, according to the invite, was scheduled for the night of Oct. 1 in Dupont Circle, an area of Washington D.C.

It asks for a $1,000 donation to “host” the event, $500 to “co-host,” $250 to attend as a “friend” or $100 to come as a “supporter.” The invitation said it was paid for by Tammy Baldwin for Senate.


“Your support for Tammy's campaign has been wonderful and we really appreciate the help,” the invitation reads. “We are fast approaching the final weeks and we could use your help one more time.”

Katz and Banks did not return a request for comment.

Baldwin’s Republican opponent, Leah Vukmir, in a statement sent to Fox News before it was clear the attorneys were pulling out, called the fundraiser “despicable.”

"In the most despicable manner, Senator Baldwin, who opposed Judge Kavanaugh within 48 hours of his nomination and refused to meet with him, will be holding a political fundraiser with the lawyers of Dr. Ford who is now accusing him of sexual assault,” Vukmir said. “Baldwin and her Democrat colleagues will take advantage and fundraise off any situation — even the most egregious.”

In a letter to Senate Republicans on Wednesday, Katz and Banks said, "Dr. Ford was reluctantly thrust into the public spotlight only two days ago. She is currently unable to go home, and is receiving ongoing threats to her and her family's safety.”


http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....wyers.html
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5861
Reputation: 286.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does anybody actually believe her, at this point? I can see that there are lots of people who can still be persuaded, but if she doesn't show up, most people would think she's too sensitive for the questioning she can expect.

I think most people are suspicious, but can't refuse her demand for a hearing. She better have something to back up her story.

On the other hand, if she has something deemed bad enough to deny him the nomination, how can he continue in his old job? This is really an attempt to destroy a man's whole life, no just block his promotion. Someone who, as far as anyone but this one woman knows, has led an unblemished life. And they are doing it more because he will alter the tilt of the Court, not for anything he is genuinely culpable for.

On the other side, it's clearly organized as a last-minute tactic to stall the nomination just in case. When the dust settles from all of this, that fact will remain. This will become the new standard. Two conservative judges have been treated this way. Retaliation is only a Democrat President away.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5861
Reputation: 286.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anita Hill's chance -- this is her statement that started her interview with the Senate Committee that lasted days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWD1Cce2AUo

In the end, she was cross-examined by Arlen Specter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfvDcMzyAlY

I didn't find the video particularly good, but it is clear, the Dems are moving to save their witness from another Arlen Specter cross-examination. For this purpose, expect them to invoke the Spirit of Vulnerable Femininity as a protective shroud. These experiences, so easily forgotten 35 years ago, are now so shattering that the very memory of them are as bad as ... what? A rape? Perhaps a grope, at most?

I can see the headlines now: 17-year-old boy's life busted for titty-twister ... Perhaps flogging should be reintroduced. We will know then that we have arrived at a socially just world where women are equal to men ... where they can run as fast, jump as far, do math as well, where they don't need men ... Then they'll be able to get their share of those jobs at the rear end of a garbage truck, or down those holes where the water mains are leaking. And the world will be good ...

You know, and I know, they don't want that. Maybe even TC knows.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8931
Reputation: 294.8
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trump goes on offensive in Kavanaugh fight, calls on accuser to provide a police report




Alex Pappas By Alex Pappas | Fox News



Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh: The allegations

Christine Blasey Ford has publicly accused Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago. A look at what she is saying and how top lawmakers are responding.

President Trump on Friday went on the offensive in the battle over Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation after days of laying low, calling on accuser Christine Blasey Ford to provide a police report, slamming Democrats for waiting to share the allegations and telling senators to move ahead with a vote.


In a sharp change of tone after days of reserved statements regarding the allegations, the president unleashed a torrent of tweets, first in defense of Kavanaugh. He then put pressure on Ford to furnish a police report, though there's no indication one was ever filed.

"I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!" he tweeted.


He also tweeted: “Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a fine man, with an impeccable reputation, who is under assault by radical left wing politicians who don’t want to know the answers, they just want to destroy and delay. Facts don’t matter. I go through this with them every single day in D.C.”


The president was also critical of Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., for receiving a letter from Ford outlining her allegations in July, but failing to disclose them, even anonymously, to federal officials or other committee members until last week.

"Senator Feinstein and the Democrats held the letter for months, only to release it with a bang after the hearings were OVER - done very purposefully to Obstruct & Resist & Delay," Trump tweeted Friday. "Let her testify, or not, and TAKE THE VOTE!"


Trump also took issue with Ford’s legal team saying they want the FBI to investigate the allegations – something the bureau has indicated it has no plans to do.

"The radical left lawyers want the FBI to get involved NOW," Trump tweeted. "Why didn’t someone call the FBI 36 years ago?"


The statements come as the deadline passed for Ford to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee whether she will accept an invitation to testify about her claims on Monday. It's unclear if a deal was made, but talks could still be ongoing, as Ford's lawyers re-opened discussions Thursday with Republicans over scheduling testimony.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley had called on Ford to respond by 10 a.m. Friday. With the deadline passed, Fox News has learned Grassley is speaking with committee members and key other players about what they’re willing to do.

Ford, through her attorneys, has given differing statements about whether she is willing to testify. Earlier this week, Ford’s attorney Debra Katz indicated her client was willing to do so, before later saying they wanted the FBI to investigate the claims first.

According to a Thursday email sent by her attorney Debra Katz to the committee, Ford is willing to appear for a hearing on Capitol Hill as long as senators provide "terms that are fair and which ensure her safety."

But they do not want Ford to testify on Monday.

Among the terms being requested by Ford’s legal team: Only members of the committee -- no lawyers -- can question her; Kavanaugh cannot be in the room at the time; and Kavanaugh should be questioned first, before he has the opportunity to hear Ford's testimony.

It’s not clear if Republicans would agree to those terms, especially over Kavanaugh having to testify before he hears the accusations against him.

Trump has called for Ford to testify, and on Thursday night said he wants to see the confirmation process proceed without delay.


Trump Reacts to Kavanaugh Accuser Case

Speaking to Fox News' Sean Hannity on Thursday night before a rally in Nevada, Trump called Kavanaugh "an outstanding person" and said, "I don't think you can delay it any longer."

For his part, Kavanaugh, in a letter to the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, indicated he would be ready and willing to testify on Monday. "I continue to want a hearing as soon as possible, so that I can clear my name," he wrote.

"Since the moment I first heard this allegation, I have categorically and unequivocally denied it. I remain committed to defending my integrity."

Kavanaugh's letter did not contain any preconditions for his testimony. Fox News has learned that Kavanaugh, under oath, answered questions from the Judiciary Committee earlier this week, and denied the allegations.

In a series of tweets earlier Thursday, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee noted they had obtained statements, under penalty of felony, from two other people at the house party where the alleged assault occurred, including Kavanaugh friend Mark Judge and another individual.

Committee members also wrote that they had reached out to a "fourth person allegedly at the party," as well as "a schoolmate who claimed on social media this week to have info related to Dr. Ford’s allegations" -- but had not heard back.

That was an apparent reference to a widely circulated online account by Cristina Miranda King, who claimed that she heard about the alleged assault at the time. King deleted her online post after questions emerged about apparent inconsistencies in her claims.

On Thursday, Ford's lawyers reportedly requested that the Judiciary Committee subpoena Judge to testify. Earlier this week, Judge told committee Republicans that he had "no memory" of the alleged incident, and said he did not want to testify.

Asked whether Republicans had planned to call Judge to testify, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters, “No reason to. ... He’s already said what he’s going to say."

It would be highly unusual for a witness before a Senate committee to dictate who receives a subpoena as a precondition to testifying.

Meanwhile, a former classmate of Kavanaugh's said that he had no "recollection" of any incident at the house party Ford described, saying he was one of the people Ford had claimed to be there.

Ford alleged in the letter that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her more than 35 years ago, although she has since indicated that she cannot be sure in which house the assault occurred. Kavanaugh has denied all the accusations.


http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....sault.html
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5861
Reputation: 286.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is likely that the witness is phoning up old friends and associates to see if anybody else remembers where the party was, who held it, and who can at least frame the time period when the party took place.

Which is cheating. How different is that from collaborating to fill in the gaps in her allegations? Or is she genuinely refreshing her memory? Whose testimony is she providing, hers or (hers + old girlfriends)?

There are two nominally Republican senators that are the pivotal votes. Everyone else seems to be 'whipped' into place. Flake and the lady from Alaska. Flake is certainly an avowed enemy of Trump.

Trump is imperturbable. While he's keeping hs eye on the nomination, he is jacking up the tariffs on China, trying to make them squeal. He's visiting the hurricane relief operation in the Carolinas. He's keeping Crystina on the other side of the moat, and North Korea is coming around. He has declassified the emails, and they will be released over the next ten days.

This is the stinkiest part of some of the scheming, and my bet is that it will show a connection to Obama.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8931
Reputation: 294.8
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( whats interesting is the women who know him are standing firmly behind him and don't think the accusation is truthful . no other women have come forward to accuse him of anything , typically when a man is guilty of sexual harassment there is a pattern of victims who meet him under similar circumstances and a pattern of bad behaviour . with this man , we have nothing like that and it makes the accusation seem less credible )


Women rally in support of Kavanaugh: 'We know the man, we know his heart'


By Lauren Lee | Fox News


Dozens of female colleagues, classmates and friends of Brett Kavanaugh rallied in support of the embattled Supreme Court nominee on Friday, saying they don’t believe the sexual assault allegation against him.


Dozens of female colleagues, classmates and friends of Brett Kavanaugh rallied in support of the embattled Supreme Court nominee on Friday, saying they don’t believe the sexual assault allegation against him. (Lauren Lee/Fox News)

Dozens of female colleagues, classmates and friends of Brett Kavanaugh rallied in support of the embattled Supreme Court nominee on Friday, saying they don’t believe the sexual assault allegation against him.



The women, who last week wrote a letter of support for Kavanaugh, spoke at a Washington press conference in front of a banner that blared “#IStandWithBrett.”

“Brett stood out as the most responsible guy who treated us with kindness and respect,” said Megan McCaleb, a former classmate and longtime friend of Kavanaugh.


McCaleb said Kavanaugh dated her sister and some of her closest friends in school and treated them with respect and decency, to a point he still remains close friends with them today.

Sara Fagen, another longtime friend who worked with Kavanaugh in the White House, told a story about how Kavanaugh helped her the day of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.



Fagen recalled how a Secret Service agent, during the chaos of that day, told her to run from her office amid fears a hijacked airliner could be headed toward the White House. Scared and alone on the street with nothing in her pockets, Fagen said she ran into Kavanaugh, who made sure she got home safely.


The other women who spoke at the event described Kavanaugh as a family man who coaches a girls’ basketball team, tutors children, goes to neighborhood barbeques and attends church.

“Brett was the kind of guy you wanted to take home to your parents,” said Maura Fitzgerald, a longtime friend since high school who once dated Kavanaugh.

The press conference was held in response to the sexual assault allegations that have rocked the Supreme Court nominee's confirmation process. Christine Blasey Ford, a clinical psychology professor who says she knew Kavanaugh in school, alleges he pinned her down to a bed and attempted to remove her clothes at a high school party more than three decades ago. He denies the allegation.

Kavanaugh's confirmation proceedings have been delayed for days as Senate Republicans negotiate with Ford's attorneys over whether she will testify about her claims on Capitol Hill next week.

The women declined Friday to answer questions about Ford, saying they were there to talk about Kavanaugh and how “we know the man, we know his heart.”

Meanwhile, Ford has been supported by numerous alumni of her school, family members and Democratic lawmakers.

A day earlier, alumni from Ford's high school, Holton-Arms, held a press conference with Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii.

“It took a lot of courage for Christine Blasey Ford to come forward to share her story of sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh," Hirono tweeted. "Her story is very credible and I believe her."


http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....heart.html
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8931
Reputation: 294.8
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( so far there is no evidence and no witnesses , and some are starting to wonder is there any evidence to back up this accusation ? )


Marc Thiessen: Ford vs. Kavanaugh -- How much evidence do we need to destroy someone?



Marc Thiessen OPINION By Marc Thiessen | The Washington Post




Kavanaugh's accuser in talks to testify before Congress

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford negotiates terms for testifying to the Senate. Mike Emanuel reports from Capitol Hill.

Christine Blasey Ford has accused Brett M. Kavanaugh of attempted rape while they were both in high school -- a charge he unequivocally denies.


She can't remember the date the alleged attack took place. She isn't even certain about the year (although she reportedly thinks it may have been the summer around the end of her sophomore year when she was 15).

She can't remember whose house she was in. She can't remember how she got there.

She says she didn't tell anyone about it at the time, not even her closest friends -- so there are no contemporaneous witnesses to back her claims.

No other women have come forward to say that the young Kavanaugh assaulted them. There is no pattern of bad behavior.

Quite the contrary, by all accounts other than Ford's, he treats women with respect in his personal and professional life. (Full disclosure: I worked with Kavanaugh in the George W. Bush White House.)


The gathering included just Ford and four others, according to her confidential letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

One man named by Ford as a witness has come forward and not only denied knowledge of the assault but also denied knowledge of the gathering in question.

Another, who said he was the "PJ" mentioned in the letter, Patrick J. Smyth, has also denied being at a gathering like the one Ford described.

Ford deserves to be treated with dignity, not maligned or attacked. But let's not forget that Kavanaugh is human too.

This ordeal affects not only him but also his family, including his two young daughters, who are hearing awful things said about the father they love. He cannot prove a negative.

So far, there are accusations but no corroborating evidence. And accusations without evidence cannot be the standard by which a man's reputation and career are ruined.

Both Kavanaugh and Ford have been ill-served by Senate Democrats in this process.

Feinstein, the Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat, knew about Ford's accusation for about six weeks and did nothing.

She never asked Kavanaugh about the allegations in private or in public. She did not use the confidential, bipartisan process that the Judiciary Committee uses every day to assess the credibility of allegations against hundreds of judicial nominees -- which would have given Ford the chance to talk to the committee's professional investigators in a confidential setting.

Bizarrely, to this day Feinstein has not shared a copy of Ford's unredacted letter with Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa. But Democrats appear not to have been too scrupulous when it came to protecting her confidentiality.

Ford has also been ill-served by her lawyers, who initially stated that Ford "will agree to participate in any proceedings that she's asked to participate in." Then, when Grassley canceled the vote on Kavanaugh's nomination and scheduled a hearing where she could testify in public or private, her lawyers started echoing Senate Democrats' new message that a full FBI investigation was needed before she would speak to the committee -- undermining the perception of Ford's independence. (At this writing, she has reversed course yet again, with her lawyer now saying she might be willing to testify next week).

It's not the FBI's job to investigate. There is no federal crime alleged. As Grassley explained in a letter, "We have no power to commandeer an executive branch agency into conducting our due diligence."

Senate Democrats know this. They have turned down Grassley's offer to participate in interviews of Kavanaugh, Ford and other alleged witnesses.

They are using Ford to demand an FBI investigation in the hope they can use it to delay Kavanaugh's confirmation until after Election Day -- when Democrats hope to take back the Senate and block him from joining the Supreme Court.

The #MeToo movement is a force for good in society. It has removed sexual predators from the workplace in politics, media, entertainment, religion and elsewhere. It has encouraged women and men who have been abused to speak up -- and others to support their allegations. But allegations alone are not enough. There must be evidence. With the evidence available right now, there is no chance Kavanaugh would be convicted in a court of law.

Indeed, no reasonable prosecutor would agree to bring a case. But in the court of public opinion, the standards of evidence seem to be much lower. This much is certain: The standard of evidence to ruin a man's reputation cannot be zero.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion.....meone.html
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5861
Reputation: 286.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a fun video. It comes through a Vblogger, and is a review of the high school year books of the private schools that Blasey/Ford attended, when she attended. These were scrubbed from the internet.

The yearbook features drunkeness and promiscuity. pictures included. The yearbook would have passed a faculty veto, so this was looked on as good clean fun for young ladies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkbnTsUOFlU

This is the 'virtue' the Senators are so concerned about. Even recalling these memories is forcing her to be re-victimized again? Why am I laughing as I hammer this out?
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8931
Reputation: 294.8
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find the whole thing bizarre to say the least , the fact that an appointment of a supreme court justice is coming down to an event that may or may not have happened in high school 36 years ago is ridiculous in itself


would imagine most high school parties would be epicentres of bad behaviour , teen drinking , hormones gone wild and teens just starting to experiment with there sexuality


I wonder if we polled some average high school kids , asked them if they though it would be ok for an employer to deny them a job , 10 or 20 years from now because they did something stupid at a party one night ? would that be an acceptable reason ? what if there was virtually no evidence to prove anything had happened ? the employer simply had reasons to believe it occurred based on reputation or what the other person said ?

what % of teens would actually think it was ok ? are the high school years something an employer should be allowed to look into ? when something is young and not smart enough to know better yet . the reality is most teens do something stupid during these years and when they graduate from college they move on with there lives and its accepted that employers aren't suppose to look into there past and deny them employment over silly things such as high school parties



back to the case itself , it also stands out that everyone involved in backing up the accusations is a democrat and doesn't even deny that fact . the accuser herself is a registered democrat , her lawyers are democrats ( who had planned to attend a fundraiser with a democratic senator ) , the senator she first told about the accusations is a democrat , the senators pushing the story in Washington are all democrats , the media pushing the story are all democrats as well


there isn't even a degree of neutrality anywhere is this accusation , all involved are democrats and don't support the president . these senators from day one said they planned to vote against this nominee even though there wasn't a good reason to reject him . now they've created a story about him as there reason to reject him , not that they supported him to begin with



but how is Kavanaugh suppose to disprove the accusation , which is bizarre in itself . she's already stated , she doesn't remember the exact year / date , who's house it occurred at , reasons for being there , how she got there or home ?

how do you disprove such an accusation , if it was a specific date or location , there might be some records as to where he was etc ( if he could prove he was somewhere else and not there ) , but we don't even have a date at this point


she hasn't even explained how she knew kavanaugh back then or if she knew him at all , just she heard his name during the attack . that is incredibly little to go on , did she ever id him thru photo line ups or old yearbook photo's , how did she come to the conclusion it was him for sure and beyond a doubt ?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5861
Reputation: 286.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't you think there is an element of recruitment involved?

In Patrick Brown's case, for example, a CTV editor gave an 'assignment' to some of their reporters that they were interested in stories about Patrick Brown as a bed-partner. And one came through -- probably a woman's locker room story. When we tried to drag it out so it could be examined, the purveyor stayed in the shadows, claiming a fear of being traumatized by being forced to relive the experience.

And look what they made of that non-story!

But this is the big leagues in Washington. How do they come up with a plausible delay to use if they need it? Is there another volunteer with an even weaker case as a Plan B? Are there incentives involved?

This woman can't even provide a provenance for her memory. She seemingly never thought of it for decades until she's in couples therapy ... how's that different from a day-dream? Or a lie?

Particularly when it comes to American politics, big time power is involved. People will play dirty to win. I don't say one side is worse than the other. But part of the picture is that there is a real possibility of staged and counterfeit events created precisely to affect public opinion, and through that, politicians.

In any case, if this is successful, she will be rewarded. All that has to be understood. As I see it, given the teen culture she was in, given that she was wandering around a party where most of the people were stumbling drunk at 15, given that these kinds of parties were regular events -- like weekly -- it's no wonder it's foggy.

But why do we have to go through this charade that this woman needs protection, that women should be never be exposed to things that might upset them, that it would be a bad thing to confront a woman with a lie? ... this is absurd.

On the one hand, we're to believe women can do anything a man can do, usually better ... and on the other, that women are so delicate and fragile that they have to be protected from the consequences of their own actions, above any other consideration.

It seems women get to demand both sets of options, depending upon what serves them in the moment.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 15

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 13, 14, 15  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Judge Brett Kavanaugh Nominated for Supreme Court Seat

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB