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, 5, 6 ... 13, 14, 15  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 15
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9390
Reputation: 305.9Reputation: 305.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the existence of his calendars from 1982 are an interesting development , who keeps that stuff so long ?

either way as I said earlier , that's partly why Ford's accusation is so difficult for any man to disprove , she doesn't know or isn't saying a specific date or party where its alleged to have occurred


with kavanaugh's detailed records , if she's claiming it happened on a date he was for certain out of town she has to be lying or confused . but since she has not ever given a specific date its virtually impossible for him to disprove the accusation as he was only out of town on certain days and home for others


but it will be interesting to see if ford brings forward any new evidence by Thursday , at this point she is without her smoking gun to prove her story
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6165
Reputation: 294.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This would have no standing if the complainant were a man. If a man made an accusation that was later pulled out of the drawer at the very least minute, delaying the decision ... and the accusation was as vague as this one is, it would be dismissed at an early stage.

Say it was a contractor complaining that he never paid his bill. But no documents, no contract, no final bill, no copies of invoices, no dunning letter ... he's be standing in the lobby wearing a sandwich sign.

This is female cultural power. It reflects the required courtesies that are now de rigeur in the public square these days. One woman can effectively trainwreck a man of accomplishment and integrity without having any evidence. The "Me too" case is another case that also has no evidence. One case is not evidence in the other case.

But they aren't "cases" in a court. They are in the Court of Public Opinion, where white men have a lot of explainng to do. This is the cultural pose that has been implanted in our culture by education and is imposed within and through government.

As far as the media are concerned, we are not weighing the evidence and its trustworthiness, we are asking the Judge to prove he didn't do it. The fact that the charges are so vague on details means that Kavanaugh has little chance to discount Ford's claims.

To crown the absurdity of it all, this is imposed in the name of FAIRNESS!

Interestingly enough, the one other person identified as being in the room at the time has denied any of it happened, but he's a white male too ... so what do you expect?

Consider this: if this works for the Democrats, it means that, in principle, any woman holds a veto on the appointment of a Supreme Court judge if she wants to use it by taking her claim to Congress. Or Diane Feinstein. One woman, claiming a sullying of her virtue, can say NO to the President of the United States!

And women are still fighting for equality! When will they ever break through that glass ceiling?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1268
Reputation: 122.4
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I shouldnt be surprised but some never fail to do so.

Here is a woman who detailed the assault to her therapist in 2012.
Here is a woman who remembers who else was in the room when it occurred.
Here is a woman who stands to gain nothing from making this public.

Here is a woman who had to move out of her home due to threats.
Here is a woman who had to go into hiding due to threats.

And for what? Telling the truth as she knows it.

Here is a man who is on the record as saying what happened at XXX stays at XXX. What did he mean by that ? Nothing ? I doubt that.

Now some media and certainly FOX news running with the 'oh shes not wrong, she just has the wrong person identified'.

Oh my...so these folks now think it did occur but it was someone else? Such a ludicrous line of thinking, it begs the idea that perhaps they see all of this being true.

For anyone to dismiss her recollections as fantasy or worse is certainly sexist and stupidly in the GOP
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6165
Reputation: 294.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You see, folks, this is how Social Justice damages the faculties.

The part TC leaves out (conveniently) is that she's an actual feminist and Democrat activist that volunteered to be the Anita Hill. She has motives to do this. She may remember things -- but her memories don't synch with anybody else's that she names. She has no corroboration for a single thing she says in her allegations and she's running away from the hearing that she claims she needs to get 'closure'.

And because she has a twat, she can force the United States Senate to negotiate! That's the oppressed sex!

How far does someone have to have their head up their arse to have that makes sense? How can anyone honest do the "poor woman" routine out of one side of their mouth, and then insist that women can do anything men can do out of the other ... and expect people to listen to them.

This is mob rule, and we have our own barely adequate TC playing the role of Robespierre! It's to giggle.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6165
Reputation: 294.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Republicans Have A Simple Choice: Vote To Confirm Kavanaugh Or Get Slaughtered In November
The calculus isn't complicated. Republicans can stand up to vile Democrat smears and vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, or they can give in and kiss their congressional majorities goodbye.
By Sean Davis
SEPTEMBER 24, 2018

The rubber is about to meet the road for Senate Republicans. They have a simple choice: they can vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, thereby ending the baseless and unsubstantiated Democrat- and media-fueled smear campaign against him, or they can kiss House and Senate majorities goodbye for the next decade, if not longer.

In case the election of one Donald J. Trump was not enough to compel the D.C. Republican establishment swamp creatures to wipe the muck from their eyes and see what’s happening with their own constituents, Republican voters have had enough of feckless do-nothings whose careers consist of little more than not doing everything they promised to do.

Give us the House, the Senate, and the White House, they said, and we’ll repeal Obamacare. Give us power across the major elected branches, and we’ll secure the border, they promised. With a Republican president in the White House and a Republican majority in the Senate, we’ll confirm the most conservative Supreme Court nominees you can imagine, they claimed.

Yet here we are. Obamacare is still on the books, and a wall is still not on the border. The only compelling reason left for Republicans to continue voting for Republicans is the confirmation of conservative jurists to fill the federal judiciary. The confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch was nice, but it changed nothing, as he replaced the staunchly conservative Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch’s appointment merely maintained the status quo.


Quote:
John Hayward
@Doc_0
Anyone who thinks pulling the Kavanaugh nomination after a last-minute smear campaign whipped up out of thin air by the Democrats would be anything but an extinction-level event for the GOP is not a serious "political analyst" and is probably trying to engineer that outcome.

10:39 AM - Sep 24, 2018
1,574
695 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Republican lawmakers have to understand that their voters have zero patience for their excuses for not doing what they promised. It’s why they elected Trump in the first place. Republican senators failed to repeal Obamacare after promising to do so for years. That was strike one. They’ve steadfastly refused to secure the border, let alone build a barrier along the most porous sections of the nation’s border with Mexico. That was strike two.


A refusal to vote to confirm Kavanaugh in the face of a blatantly obvious Democrat smear campaign, orchestrated in concert with a compliant and obscenely partisan national media, will be strike three, and there will be no more at-bats. I have spent a career working in and covering politics, and I have never witnessed the kind of anger among rank-and-file GOP voters generated from a combination of the unsubstantiated Democrat attacks on Kavanaugh and the flaccid response of emasculated Republicans.

The stakes of the current battle over Kavanaugh are far bigger than a single Supreme Court seat, and Republican voters understand this, even if their elected lawmakers don’t. It’s bigger than Roe v. Wade, Obamacare, or Second Amendment rights. Democrats are trying to turn the rule of law on its head, to destroy the presumption of innocence — not for themselves, mind you, but for anyone who dares to oppose their totalitarian political agenda.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) made clear on CNN on Sunday that Kavanaugh does not deserve to be presumed innocent, notwithstanding the lack of any corroborating evidence of any of the allegations made against him, entirely because his political ideology and judicial philosophy do not align with those of the Democratic Party.

When asked whether Kavanaugh is entitled to the presumption of innocence, Hirono said, “I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases.” Translation: he is guilty because of what he believes, not because of anything he’s actually done. Laverentiy Beria, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin’s most trusted police inquisitor, who famously declared, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime,” would surely applaud the totalitarian sentiment underlying Hirono’s statement.


If Kavanaugh is not safe from reputation- and career-destroying smears, no one is. Not you. Not your husband. Not your son, father, or brother. If they can destroy Kavanaugh, they can do it to anyone you love and trust, regardless of any mountains of facts or evidence to the contrary.

The Republican base understands this to its core. But do Republican lawmakers? It’s not clear that they do, especially given the way they allowed themselves to get played by nakedly political activists who hijacked Senate Judiciary Committee proceedings over the weekend.

The Democrats have one goal: to prevent the nation’s elected Republican government from doing what it was elected to do. That’s the whole purpose of the Robert Mueller probe, which to date has not produced a shred of evidence that Trump treasonously conspired with the Russian government to steal an election from Hillary Clinton. It’s the reason for the lawless and anti-democratic “resistance” within federal agencies, which gleefully uses its power and total lack of accountability to the electorate to wreak havoc on our nation’s institutions.

Democrats refuse to accept that they lost the election fair and square, and they refuse to accept that Trump and Republican lawmakers have the right under the U.S. Constitution to nominate and confirm Supreme Court justices. The last week has proven that Democrats will do anything, whether it’s spinning up federal investigations on false premises, sabotaging legal processes within federal agencies, or cooking up vile smear campaigns to prevent the confirmation of the next Supreme Court justice, all the way to 2020 and perhaps even beyond, if necessary.

Republican voters know exactly what’s happening right now, and they’re out for blood. The only question left is who they’re going to punish. If Senate Republican leaders don’t immediately end this entire charade and schedule a floor vote for Kavanaugh, their heads will be on the chopping block.

An electorate already disgusted with consistent GOP failure to honor its promises is not going to lift a finger to keep the same do-nothings in power. If they’re going to stand by and allow to Democrats to do whatever they want, there’s simply no point in electing Republicans again.

Conversely, if GOP lawmakers show that they do have a spine and are no longer willing to let the other side get away with reputation murder, they might actually keep both their House and Senate majorities in November. As Trump has shown, even discouraged Republican voters are willing to stand behind somebody who’s willing to stand up for them.

It’s time for Senate Republicans to stand and be counted. If they do the right thing, they will be rewarded at the polls. If they continue to cower and allow themselves to be bullied by tinpot totalitarians like Chuck Schumer and Mazie Hirono, then they’re going to deserve everything that’s coming to them in November.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/.....e-83873765


This is an opinion shared by Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich, amongst others.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1268
Reputation: 122.4
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you bugs.

With these posts, and many others, you confirm via use of vulgar terms exactly how you feel about women today.

You really ought to be ashamed, considering you claim to have daughters .


Perhaps someday you can dismiss your daughters concerns about any harassment to 'you have a twat' . What do you expect?

Lovely. But thank you for taking the bait and doubling down.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6165
Reputation: 294.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You will notice how the dimwit jumps on any pretext to denounce, all the while avoiding the real issue. Does the question change if you use the Latin words for body parts?

How does someone born into the silver-spoon world of upper-class suburban Washington DC get to claim to be oppressed? How does being female blight her life, when she can bring the US Senate to abandon a century or two or precedent so that she can be accommodated?

TC should stop being a twat.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1268
Reputation: 122.4
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More of the insane inanities . Thank you.

Also thank you for ignoring all the points as to what she had to endure from going public, not a mention as to why she would have documented all this in 2012.

Not a thing about the 'what happens at xxx, stays at XXX.'

And of course not a thing about the 900 signatories in support of her.

Your comeback, as lame as can be is thus.." she's an actual feminist and Democrat activist that volunteered to be the Anita Hill. She has motives to do this. "

No back up, no collaboration, no links.

In fact we now know the first two are known falsities.

No 'motives' are provided, just more lame attempts by you to display horrible misogyny.

Well done.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9390
Reputation: 305.9Reputation: 305.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
I shouldnt be surprised but some never fail to do so.

Here is a woman who detailed the assault to her therapist in 2012.
Here is a woman who remembers who else was in the room when it occurred.
Here is a woman who stands to gain nothing from making this public.

Here is a woman who had to move out of her home due to threats.
Here is a woman who had to go into hiding due to threats.

And for what? Telling the truth as she knows it.

Here is a man who is on the record as saying what happened at XXX stays at XXX. What did he mean by that ? Nothing ? I doubt that.

Now some media and certainly FOX news running with the 'oh shes not wrong, she just has the wrong person identified'.

Oh my...so these folks now think it did occur but it was someone else? Such a ludicrous line of thinking, it begs the idea that perhaps they see all of this being true.

For anyone to dismiss her recollections as fantasy or worse is certainly sexist and stupidly in the GOP




but my problem with the accusation is not the fact that she went public , more has to do with the way its been written up by her high priced lawyers . it leaves the accused with little way to defend one self


how on earth is anyone suppose to mount a defense to such an accusation , 36 years ago at a drunken high school party , at an unknown location , on an unknown date , at an event for an unknown purpose , with no other witnesses who can recall or remember the event in question


its been created so even if Kavanaugh was able to find a record of his whereabouts around that time he cannot create a defense . an unknown date ? how is anyone suppose to launch a defense when there not even being told when and where this offense is alleged to have occurred ? how are they suppose to find witnesses from the day in question when they don't know the date ?


kavanaugh has apparently found his calendar from back then ( and was mostly out of town on summer vacation ) but even with that evidence he cannot prove his innocence , as the woman has not even provided an approximate date or time as to when it might of happened


at its core this accusation stinks as it appears to have been written up in such a way that the accused could not mount a credible defense of any kind
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9390
Reputation: 305.9Reputation: 305.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the 2 accusers have also somehow managed to find high priced and well connected lawyers with deep connections to the democratic party itself )


Kavanaugh accusers enlist high-powered lawyers, Dem operatives



Alex Pappas By Alex Pappas | Fox News



Democrats want to postpone Kavanaugh hearing

Second woman accuses Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in new report; Peter Doocy reports from Capitol Hill.

The women accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in high school and college have something else in common: they are enlisting a growing number of well-known Democratic lawyers, donors and operatives for their fight against President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court.


They include pair of high-profile lawyers who fundraise for top Democrats; the attorney and spokeswoman for former FBI official Andrew McCabe; former advisers to then-Vice President Joe Biden; and even Michael Avenatti – the media-hungry lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels who says he’s considering a Democratic run of his own for president in 2020.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has raised questions about the circumstances that led to accuser Christine Blasey Ford hiring two lawyers, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks, asking who is paying their legal fees.


“They are the people who want to sink Kavanaugh and get Trump,” Graham said last week of Katz and Banks on Fox News’ “The Story with Martha MacCallum.”

Katz and Banks’ close ties to the Democratic Party were highlighted last week after it was revealed, amid negotiations with Republicans over whether Ford would testify, that they were scheduled to headline a fundraiser for Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s campaign. After Fox News and other outlets obtained an invitation, Katz and Banks dropped out of the fundraiser.


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

According to donor records, Katz has donated generously over the years to Democrats, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, the Democratic National Committee and others. Banks, too, has donated to numerous Democratic causes, including Obama, Clinton and Baldwin.


Katz has attended anti-Trump rallies, telling ABC News last year, “We are going to resist. We will not be silenced.”

Over the weekend, Ford’s legal team grew with the addition of attorney Michael Bromwich, who represents fired FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, who has sparred with Trump over the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton and Russia investigations.

“I’m honored to be joining Debra Katz and Lisa Banks in representing Dr. Ford,” Bromwich tweeted.


Joining Bromwich on the effort are Melissa Schwartz, who works for Bromwich and has served as a McCabe spokesman, and Kendra Barkoff Lamy, a former press secretary to Biden. Democratic operative Ricki Seidman -- who also worked for Biden and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy and was involved in accuser Anita Hill’s testimony during Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court confirmation – is also advising Ford, according to Politico.

“We are proud to be new members of Team Ford,” Schwartz tweeted.


Ford has accused of Kavanaugh of forcing himself on her during a party in the 1980s before being able to get away.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley released Monday, Ford said it was a “difficult” decision to come forward with her allegation but she felt it was her “civic duty.” Ford said she initially wanted to disclose the allegations “in a confidential manner,” but she’s now willing to testify.

“My original intent was first and foremost to be a helpful citizen – in a confidential way that would minimize collateral damage to all families and friends involved,” Ford said.

A second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, stepped forward in a Sunday story published by The New Yorker claiming Kavanaugh, while in college, exposed himself during a drunken party at a Yale dormitory.


The Colorado Sun reported that Ramirez located her attorneys with the help of Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet.

Meanwhile, Avenatti -- famous for representing Stormy Daniels, who claims she had a past sexual encounter with Trump – tweeted Sunday he soon intends to reveal other accusations against Kavanaugh from another woman.


Kavanaugh has denied all the allegations, calling them “a smear, plain and simple.”

“I represent a woman with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge,” Avenatti tweeted. “We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify. The nomination must be withdrawn.”

Avenatti further alleged that he had knowledge Kavanaugh and high school friend Mark Judge targeted women with drugs and alcohol in order to "allow a 'train' of men to subsequently gang rape them."

He did not state the source of his evidence and did not name any alleged victims.

Avenatti, who was largely unknown before representing Daniels, has been giving speeches to Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire, teasing a possible presidential run against Trump.

Pinned at the top of his Twitter profile – which he is using to promote the new allegations – is his platform of where he stands on “20 key issues” ahead of a possible White House bid.

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





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9390
Reputation: 305.9Reputation: 305.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the leader of the republicans in the senate is saying the democrats are running a smear campaign and there will be a vote to confirm Kavanaugh in the near future )



McConnell says Kavanaugh will get up-or-down vote; blasts Senate Dems for 'smear campaign'


Andrew O'Reilly By Andrew O'Reilly | Fox News



Kavanaugh and Deborah Ramirez allegations: What to know

The New Yorker published new allegations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh by his Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez. Here is what you need to know.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., vowed that lawmakers will vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in the “near future,” during a speech on the Senate floor in which he strongly criticized Democrats for what he continually called a “smear campaign” against the judge.



“The Democrats have already made up their minds and chosen their tactics,” McConnell said. “Delay. Obstruct. Resist.”

The Kentucky lawmaker added: “This shameful smear campaign has hit a new low…Senate Democrats are trying to destroy a man’s personal and professional life.”


McConnell’s speech came as the controversy over Kavanaugh’s confirmation took another twist when a new accusation landed late Sunday in a report from The New Yorker. It came just a few hours after negotiators had reached an agreement to hold an extraordinary public hearing Thursday for Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who accuses him of sexually assaulting her at a party when they were teenagers. Kavanaugh denies the claim.

In the second allegation, Deborah Ramirez told The New Yorker that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party at Yale in the 1983-84 school year.

In his speech, McConnell referenced the reluctance of the New York Times – a frequent punching bag for President Trump and conservative lawmakers – to print Ramirez’s allegations. The New York Times reported that it “could find no one with firsthand knowledge” of the incident described by Ramirez and noted that “Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”



In a play off the New York Times slogan “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” McConnell said “the latest allegation is not fit to print” and added that Senate Democrats “just wanted another hit in the press.”

Despite the New Yorker also raising concerns about Ramirez’s claims – the magazine reported that she “was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty” – one of the piece’s writers, Ronan Farrow, told ABC on Monday that there are "several people in this story who back Ms. Ramirez."


Both Ramirez’s allegations and McConnell’s speech come just days before both Kavanaugh and Ford are expected to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee about her claims. Two other Senate Republicans, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, are also urging a vote after the hearing with Ford.

President Trump also pledged his support for Kavanaugh on Monday, saying the sexual misconduct allegations against his choice are "totally political."

Trump, at the United Nations in New York, declared that Kavanaugh is "outstanding," and added, "I am with him all the way."

http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....paign.html
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1268
Reputation: 122.4
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:

but my problem with the accusation is not the fact that she went public , more has to do with the way its been written up by her high priced lawyers . it leaves the accused with little way to defend one self

So, you are saying because they are high priced lawyers good at writing, he is defenseless?
Quote:

how on earth is anyone suppose to mount a defense to such an accusation ,

With other high priced lawyers hired on his behalf. If it was good enough ofr her to do, it would be even moreso with his connections and money.




Quote:
its been created so even if Kavanaugh was able

Created? Best not to jump to conclusions .



Quote:

at its core this accusation stinks as it appears to have been written up in such a way that the accused could not mount a credible defense of any kind

If it is written in such a way that he cannot defend himself, perhaps it is because he just cant defend himself.

I am not on the record to say one way or another . But with the allegations presented, the timeline whereby she had this 'assault' documented 6 years ago, most of this attack on the woman seems misplaced.

She asked for the FBI to investigate. They can and should.
There is nothing to quickly resolve in this, so hold off the hearings and get to the bottom of this.

Seems pretty easy.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9390
Reputation: 305.9Reputation: 305.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
RCO wrote:

but my problem with the accusation is not the fact that she went public , more has to do with the way its been written up by her high priced lawyers . it leaves the accused with little way to defend one self

So, you are saying because they are high priced lawyers good at writing, he is defenseless?
Quote:

how on earth is anyone suppose to mount a defense to such an accusation ,

With other high priced lawyers hired on his behalf. If it was good enough ofr her to do, it would be even moreso with his connections and money.


Quote:
its been created so even if Kavanaugh was able

Created? Best not to jump to conclusions .



Quote:

at its core this accusation stinks as it appears to have been written up in such a way that the accused could not mount a credible defense of any kind

If it is written in such a way that he cannot defend himself, perhaps it is because he just cant defend himself.

I am not on the record to say one way or another . But with the allegations presented, the timeline whereby she had this 'assault' documented 6 years ago, most of this attack on the woman seems misplaced.

She asked for the FBI to investigate. They can and should.
There is nothing to quickly resolve in this, so hold off the hearings and get to the bottom of this.

Seems pretty easy.




its already been explained that the FBI cannot investigate for several reasons , first off there was no federal crime committed , the statue of limitations has expired and they already completed a back ground check on Kavanaugh that found no evidence of criminal activity


just for curiosity sake lets say several " republican " women came out and accused Joe Biden of sexual assault 30 plus years ago when they were at a party with him but they couldn't remember the exact date or location , had no physical evidence to back up there claims , all witnesses said they didn't remember anything happening or weren't present and they had high priced republican connected lawyers representing them


would you honestly believe these women ? I'd seriously like to know , cause its basically the situation we have with Kavanaugh except there democratic women
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9390
Reputation: 305.9Reputation: 305.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( Kavanaugh has released a detailed fox news interview , in it he says he was a virgin in high school and never assaulted anyone . )


Kavanaugh denies sexual misconduct in Fox News exclusive: 'I know I'm telling the truth'




Samuel Chamberlain By Samuel Chamberlain | Fox News


Kavanaugh: I never sexually assaulted anyone

Exclusive: Kavanaugh and his wife Ashley respond to the sexual misconduct allegations him. On 'The Story,' Judge Kavanaugh says he has always treated women with dignity and respect.

EXCLUSIVE – Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly denied accusations of sexual misconduct that have threatened to derail his confirmation in an exclusive interview with Fox News on Monday.


"What I know is the truth, and the truth is I've never sexually assaulted anyone," Kavanaugh told Fox News' Martha MacCallum.

Kavanaugh's wife, Ashley, said the allegations against her husband were "hard to believe."

'The Story' exclusive: Judge Kavanaugh says in America 'we hear from both sides.'

"I know Brett. I've known him for 17 years," she said. "He's decent, he's kind, he's good. I know his heart. This is not consistent with Brett."

California professor Christine Blasey Ford has accused Kavanaugh of covering her mouth and trying to remove her clothing at a party in the early 1980s, when both were in high school. Kavanaugh and Ford are set to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

In the interview, Kavanaugh emphatically denied Ford's claim against him, telling MacCallum that he was a virgin through high school and for "many years after."


"I was never at any such party," Kavanaugh said. "The other people who alleged to be present have said they do not remember any such party. A woman who was present, another woman who was present who was Dr. Ford’s lifelong friend has said she doesn’t know me and never remembers being at a party with me at any time in her life."

Will Kavanaugh survive the nomination process? Legal expert Jonathan Turley explains on 'Special Report.'

Kavanaugh added that he was "not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps Dr. Ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone at some place, but what I know is I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone."

He also said he "may have met" Ford during his high school days, but added that she was "not a friend [and] not someone I knew."

"I know Brett. I know who he is," Ashley Kavanaugh added. "I don’t know what happened to [Ford] and I don't even want to go there. I feel badly for her family. I feel badly for her through this process. This process is not right."

Kavanaugh also told MacCallum that he would not withdraw his name from consideration over the allegations.

"I want a fair process where I can defend my integrity, and I know I'm telling the truth," the judge said. "I know my lifelong record and I'm not going to let false accusations drive me out of this process. I have faith in God and I have faith in the fairness of the American people."

Kavanaugh also denied a New Yorker report published Sunday night in which classmate Deborah Ramirez said he exposed himself to her while they were students at Yale, pointing out that The New York Times had said it could not corroborate her claims.



"I never did any such thing," Kavanaugh said. "The other people alleged to be there don't recall any such thing. If such a thing had happened, it would have been the talk of campus."


In addition, Kavanaugh said claims by attorney Michael Avenatti that he and high school friend Mark Judge had plied women with drugs and alcohol at parties so other men could gang rape them were "totally false and outrageous."

"Yes, there were parties and the drinking age was 18 and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there, he said. "And yes, people might have had too many beers on occasion … I think all of us have probably done things we look back on in high school and regret or cringe a bit. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an allegation of sexual assault. I've never sexually assaulted anyone."


Senate Majority Leader McConnell denounces Kavanaugh critics and promises vote. Fox News senior political analyst weighs in on 'Special Report.'

The Kavanaughs, who have received death threats from those opposed to his Supreme Court nomination, also discussed how their two daughters are dealing with the accusations against their father.


"It’s very difficult to have these conversations with your children, which we’ve had to have,” Ashley Kavanaugh said. “But they know Brett and they know the truth and we told them at the very beginning of this process, ‘This will be not fun sometimes. You’re going to hear things. People feel strongly and you need to know that and just remember, you know your dad.’”

Top Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have slammed what they described as a "smear campaign" orchestrated in part by Democrats. Meantime, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, has asked for the Kavanaugh nomination to be halted while the FBI investigates the allegations.

President Trump has repeatedly defended his nominee against sexual misconduct accusations, which he has called “totally political" and "one of the single most unfair, unjust things to happen to a candidate for anything."

Kavanaugh told McCallum that Trump had called him Monday afternoon to say "he’s standing by me" and said he was confident that will remain the case.

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





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9390
Reputation: 305.9Reputation: 305.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( this article helps to try and explain the democrats strategy , its about trying to block trump's so called conservative judicial picks . and either block him entirely from appointing anyone to the court or force him to pick a more moderate judge as presidents in the past were forced to do after initial picks defeated )


News Analysis

The Democratic Dream: Defeat Kavanaugh, Win the Senate and Stop Trump Supreme Court Picks



By Peter Baker
Sept. 25, 2018



WASHINGTON — As President Trump fights for confirmation of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the stakes go beyond the fate of this particular conservative nominee. At risk for Mr. Trump is his ability to install any more conservatives on the court at all.

If Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination falls apart in the face of sexual misconduct accusations, Mr. Trump faces the very real possibility that he could lose his chance to put even his second choice in this seat, which holds the balance between conservative and liberal wings on the nation’s most important court.

Democrats need to pick up only two seats in the midterm elections six weeks from Tuesday to take control of the Senate, and their anger over the Republican refusal to even consider President Barack Obama’s last nominee for the Supreme Court in 2016 is unabated. If Democrats take charge, they could block any choice Mr. Trump sends up or at least force him to pick a candidate more to their liking.

“Saving the Supreme Court from Trump’s clutches has always involved a very complicated two-step: first, block Kavanaugh, then fight like hell to win back the Senate,” said Brian Fallon, a 2016 campaign adviser to Hillary Clinton who helped start a group called Demand Justice to fight conservative judicial nominations. “If Kavanaugh drops out, we’re halfway there. If Democrats are able to win back the Senate, we’d have a path to blocking Trump from picking any of the archconservatives on his shortlist.”


That scenario helps explain why Mr. Trump and Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, are so determined to push through Judge Kavanaugh rather than replace him with a less damaged candidate. Mr. McConnell vowed on Monday to hold a floor vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination regardless of what happens during Thursday’s hearing on a sexual assault allegation against him.

With a 51-to-49 majority, Mr. Trump and Mr. McConnell have almost no room for error. If Democrats unanimously oppose Judge Kavanaugh, then Republicans can afford to lose only one member of their own conference to push through confirmation on the tiebreaking vote of Vice President Mike Pence. If they lose two, the nomination would be defeated.


While Mr. Trump could immediately nominate a replacement, it seems unlikely that the Senate could vet the candidate, hold hearings and confirm him or her before the Nov. 6 elections. If Republicans keep the Senate, then Mr. McConnell presumably could push through a new nomination in the lame-duck session afterward.

But if Democrats win, it would be hard for Mr. McConnell to proceed with confirmation during the lame-duck session given that he blocked Mr. Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland before the 2016 election by arguing that the vacant seat should be filled according to the will of the voters. By doing so, he saved the seat for Mr. Trump to fill last year with Judge Neil M. Gorsuch.

Republicans said Democrats were trying to sabotage Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, or at least delay it long enough in hopes of payback.


“Clearly, the ultimate goal of Senate Democrats is to avenge their perceived injustice of Merrick Garland,” said Josh Holmes, a former chief of staff to Mr. McConnell. “The only way to accomplish that is to burn the clock on this nomination by any means necessary in hopes that they win the majority in the Senate and deny President Trump an appointment for the next two years.”

Some Democrats have openly suggested that they would try to follow the precedent set by Mr. McConnell and leave the current vacancy unfilled if they take charge. A Democratic Senate leader and a Democratic Judiciary Committee chairman could presumably prevent a nominee from even coming to a vote, just as Mr. McConnell did.

“I think we’ve had those kinds of vacancies before, and we certainly had over a one-year vacancy with Merrick Garland,” Senator Mazie K. Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Politico Magazine’s “Off Message” podcast last week. “So the world does not come to an end because we don’t fill all of the nominees.”

Of course, just as Mr. McConnell would have to explain a change in position, Democrats would be pressed to justify a prolonged vacancy given their “We Need Nine” slogan, as they named an advocacy group that pushed for Judge Garland’s confirmation two years ago.

But nothing in the Constitution requires that the Supreme Court have nine justices; the number of seats is set by law and fluctuated in the early decades of the republic. In what was seen as a bid to thwart President Andrew Johnson from making appointments in the mid-1860s, Congress reduced the number of justices to seven from 10 and then later increased it to nine in 1869 after Johnson left office, the last time it has changed.

A two-year vacancy without changing the law, however, would go further than any Congress has gone in decades to prevent a president from using his power to appoint justices. Some Democrats dismissed such talk as Republican spin to compel wavering members like Senator Susan Collins of Maine to stand by Judge Kavanaugh for fear of what would happen if they reject him.

“To me, it sounds like they’re trying to prop up the idea that it’s Kavanaugh or bust as part of a pressure campaign on undecided members like Collins,” said Adam Jentleson, a top aide to former Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the onetime Democratic leader. Mr. Jentleson is now the public affairs director at Democracy Forward, a group that has sued to stop some of Mr. Trump’s policies.


Whether Democrats could actually manage to block any Trump appointee from confirmation if they did win is hardly a given. At best they would have a narrow majority, and Democrats historically have had trouble maintaining the sort of party discipline in the Senate that Mr. McConnell has enforced on the Republican side. They could, though, press Mr. Trump to choose a nominee who would appeal more to moderates.

The defeat of a Supreme Court nomination can make a profound difference. After President Richard M. Nixon lost two nominees in a row, he appointed Harry A. Blackmun, who wound up being the author of the Roe v. Wade abortion decision and other liberal rulings.

Almost the same thing happened when President Ronald Reagan nominated the staunch conservative Robert H. Bork. After Judge Bork was defeated in the Senate and a second choice later withdrew, Reagan tapped Anthony M. Kennedy, who ended up writing the Obergefell v. Hodges same-sex marriage decision and other rulings anathema to the right. Justice Kennedy retired this summer, opening the seat that Mr. Trump hopes to fill with Judge Kavanaugh.

It has played out the other direction as well. When Mr. Bush nominated Harriet E. Miers, conservatives suspected her of being insufficiently committed to the cause, leading to her withdrawal and to the appointment instead of Samuel A. Alito Jr., who has compiled one of the most reliably conservative records on the court over the past dozen years.

Rarely has a partisan confirmation battle over a Supreme Court nomination grown so heated so close to an election. While many compare the fight over Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to that over Clarence Thomas in 1991, that showdown took place more than a year before the next election.

In this case, voters have already begun casting ballots in some locales as the national conversation focuses intently on whether Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a fellow teenager in high school. Some Democratic strategists said a successful confirmation might actually do more to help the party take the Senate by outraging women and motivating them to vote.

“Confirming Kavanaugh would spark a political explosion, exacerbate the gender gap and dramatically increase Democrats’ chance of taking back the Senate,” said Mr. Jentleson, “while an open seat or confirmation battle closer to Election Day could be a motivator for Republican voters.”


Mr. Fallon’s group, formed after the blocking of Judge Garland’s nomination, has run advertising to bolster Democratic senators in West Virginia, Indiana and North Dakota, three Republican states that went for Mr. Trump two years ago. Mr. Fallon said a takeover of the Senate would ultimately control the fate of the Supreme Court, too.

“Democrats would have the leverage to force Trump to choose a moderate caretaker-style nominee or else could keep the seat open entirely for two more years,” he said. “The stakes of the next two weeks couldn’t be higher. If Kavanaugh is forced to bow out, the midterms could suddenly decide control of two branches of government instead of just one.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/us/politics/trump-kavanaugh-supreme-court-nomination.html
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 15

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 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