Woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago

[AUDub 11,147]

17 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Actually a lot of responsibility. If you are going to be successful as parent hopefully lasso them young regarding "choices". I am assuming that you make good choices.

 Simple as reading the news and pointing out that not many good things happen between midnight and sunlight other than fishing or hunting related

There would a teenager alive today and a few others not injured had they decided that meeting at McDonald's in Auburn was a bad choice three weeks ago

And so we're back to "she was asking for it." Good show, Salty. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

And so we're back to "she was asking for it." Good show, Salty. 

He's confused.  He says exactly what you accuse him of saying, then facepalms you for having the temerity to call him on it.

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

13 minutes ago, AUDub said:

And so we're back to "she was asking for it." Good show, Salty. 

Has nothing to with "she" simply talking about kids making choices and being honest.

Once again. Let the BK thing play out.

[AUDub 11,147]

22 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

He's confused.  He says exactly what you accuse him of saying, then facepalms you for having the temerity to call him on it.

Yep. 

Going to let you in on little secret about parenting, Salty. I've prepped my kids as well as I can on what could happen, but the fact of the matter is, they are probably going to rebel a little bit when they get a little bit of freedom. I was a teenager once, as were you, so we, as adults, with all the life experience that entails, know this as well as anybody. 

It's a tale as old as time. Kids are kids, and kids don't always make the best choices for precisely that reason. All this high minded talk about "choices" ignores that obvious and implacable phenomenon of kids doing stupid s*** and things going beyond their control. As their dad, I can protect them, provide a buffer when they make a bad choice, more so now than in the future, but sooner or later they'll end up in a situation where I won't be able to do so. This is a necessary part of learning and growing into a functional adult. The best I can do is prep them, to the best of my abilities as a parent, for when that time comes. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

36 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Allowing unsubstantiated allegations to have an effect on a person's life certainly is a hill worth dying over. "Proof of guilt" is the very core of our, and any, fair legal system. This not only should be played out to the end, it must be played out to the end or else chaos will prevail in future years. If he's guilty, then he should face the consequences. If he is being falsely accused, then his accuser should face serious consequences.

Except this isn't a court of law.  This is effectively a job interview.  People don't get jobs for a variety of reasons all the time.  If ever there was a time for Republican lawmakers to use discretion, it's now.  Pull Kavanaugh and nominate someone squeaky clean.  Get them through the process before midterms.  If the Rs happen to lose the Senate, any confirmations after midterms would face massive public backlash.

[Mikey 16,578]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Except this isn't a court of law.  This is effectively a job interview.  People don't get jobs for a variety of reasons all the time.  If ever there was a time for Republican lawmakers to use discretion, it's now.  Pull Kavanaugh and nominate someone squeaky clean.  Get them through the process before midterms.  If the Rs happen to lose the Senate, any confirmations after midterms would face massive public backlash.

It's no longer about Kavanaugh, Ford or political appointees. It's about whether one person's unsubstantiated accusations should be allowed to have a negative effect on another person's life.  This must be played out through the bitter end for the sake of the future.

[TexasTiger 12,832]

3 minutes ago, Mikey said:

It's no longer about Kavanaugh, Ford or political appointees. It's about whether one person's unsubstantiated accusations should be allowed to have a negative effect on another person's life.  This must be played out through the bitter end for the sake of the future.

Put her and everyone involved under oath. FBI investigation.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

6 minutes ago, Mikey said:

It's no longer about Kavanaugh, Ford or political appointees. It's about whether one person's unsubstantiated accusations should be allowed to have a negative effect on another person's life.  This must be played out through the bitter end for the sake of the future.

You say that, but I believe you are a conservative voter.  Let me ask this.  What's more important to you here:  this principle fight or securing a 5-4 conservative majority on the SC for years to come?

For a politician and most conservative voters, that should be a really easy answer.

[DKW 86 7,419]

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

First, I think I proved my "case".

And I am not "accusing you" of anything other than writing something which was deceptively false.  I don't think you actually planned it that way; I think you just got a little careless with your prose, which is something we all do from time to time.

No,  i was right. You were wrong. I was exacting in what I said. Keyser was named as being at the party with KB a Ford. Keyser proactively said she did not know KB and had never met him. I think we can then easily deduce that she was not at the party. Ford obviously got this part of her statements wrong.

14 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

There's a difference in saying it didn't happen and saying you have no recollection of it.  Which isn't all that surprising considering in her allegations she clearly said there was loud rock music playing and that the only ones in the bedroom were her, Kavanaugh, and Mark Judge.  

You're over selling what they said.

1

I never addressed anything about inside the room. I was speaking specifically about Ford's statements about the party and who was there. Her own lifetime friend said she was not there. She did not know KB and had never met him. The two men had responded that they did not recollect. Keyser did not say that. Keyser was emphatic that she was not there and had never met and did not know KB.

ALL THIS IS MOOT NOW ANYWAY...Whatever Ford's testimony lacked Farrow's article has in a landslide. 
Kavanaugh needs to withdraw and start repairing his family. Trump needs to withdraw his name and move on.

[jw 4 au 526]

7 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

You say that, but I believe you are a conservative voter.  Let me ask this.  What's more important to you here:  this principle fight or securing a 5-4 conservative majority on the SC for years to come?

For a politician and most conservative voters, that should be a really easy answer.

Pot meet kettle!  Your post is the most politically minded post in this thread so far. And you are too blind to even see it that you accuse a middle of the road post of exactly what you are doing.  It’s like people that DISPISE Rush Limbaugh or Faux News, but then listed to Rachel Maddow or CNN. You live exactly what you hate and accuse others of. This is the problem with our society right now.  People cannot even be honest with themselves  

Mikey is 100% right, good or bad, left or right, up or down, this must be played out to the result. For the Republicans to cave now would give creadence to unsubstantiated claims. This cannot be allowed.  See it from a different angle, what if BK was your son?  What would you believe then???  

[Mikey 16,578]

7 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Put her and everyone involved under oath. FBI investigation.

What would the FBI investigate at this point? There has been no federal crime committed. Let them testify before the committee, then the FBI can investigate who, if anybody, lied to congress then arrest and charge the liar (s) .

[TitanTiger 20,472]

3 minutes ago, Mikey said:

What would the FBI investigate at this point? There has been no federal crime committed. Let them testify before the committee, then the FBI can investigate who, if anybody, lied to congress then arrest and charge the liar (s) .

Same reason they investigated Anita Hill's accusations.  It's not some oddball thing to do:

 

Quote

September 23, 1991: Biden says in a statement reported in the Times that this is the date on which Hill agreed to allow the FBI to investigate the allegations.

Then-White House deputy press secretary Judy Smith said in a statement published by Newsday on October 6, 1991, that Hill's allegations of harassment were "brought to the attention of the Judiciary Committee" on September 23 -- a time frame that differs from Hill's account -- and the committee "immediately" informed the White House. The White House then "promptly directed the FBI to conduct a full, thorough and expeditious investigation," according to the statement.

September 26, 1991: Three days later, the FBI completed its investigation, and a report was submitted to the White House and the Judiciary Committee, according to Smith's statement. "The White House reviewed the report and determined that the allegation was unfounded," the statement said.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/19/politics/anita-hill-clarence-thomas-allegations-timeline/index.html

 

[Mikey 16,578]

7 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

You say that, but I believe you are a conservative voter.  Let me ask this. What's more important to you here:  this principle fight or securing a 5-4 conservative majority on the SC for years to come?

That's easy. The principle involved is more important because the future of our society could hang on the outcome. Do you want to live under conditions where people are punished because of unproven allegations? As @DKW 86 referred to in another thread, the lynch mob in "To Kill A Mockingbird" behaved in a manner very similar to what we're seeing in this case.

[Mikey 16,578]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Same reason they investigated Anita Hill's accusations.  It's not some oddball thing to do:

Unless my memory fails, Hill suffered no consequences. If the parties testify first, there will be consequences for lying to congress if it can be determined that one of them lied..

[TitanTiger 20,472]

7 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Unless my memory fails, Hill suffered no consequences. If the parties testify first, there will be consequences for lying to congress if it can be determined that one of them lied..

Suffered no consequences for what?  She wasn't determined to be lying under oath.  Why would she have?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

An interview on Good Morning America with Ronan Farrow:

 

[Mikey 16,578]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Suffered no consequences for what?  She wasn't determined to be lying under oath.  Why would she have?

That's why the accuser should be required to testify to congress BEFORE any FBI investigation.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, Mikey said:

That's why the accuser should be required to testify to congress BEFORE any FBI investigation.

You're not making any sense.  What difference does it make?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Also, Hill did speak to the committee before the FBI investigation.  From the same timeline article I posted above:

Quote

September 20, 1991: After Hill spoke with the committee about her allegations "an FBI investigation was suggested" to her, according to comments she made at a news conference early the next month, published in the Times. "I spoke with the Judiciary Committee about it early in September, and through a number of discussions, it was not until the 20th of September that an F.B.I. investigation was suggested to me," Hill said. She later added, "There was a further breakdown even after that, what information would be shared. So there are a number of different points at which the communication broke down, understandings were not carried through." 

Hill's comments in the news conference criticized the Judiciary Committee's handling of her complaint, saying she had tried for nearly two weeks in September to put a confidential account of her allegations before the 14 male members of the committee, the Times reported. The Times notes that Hill's account of what happened that September "differed markedly from the accounts offered" by the White House and Biden, "who said Ms. Hill's demand that her statements be kept confidential had impeded the committee."

September 23, 1991: Biden says in a statement reported in the Times that this is the date on which Hill agreed to allow the FBI to investigate the allegations.

Then-White House deputy press secretary Judy Smith said in a statement published by Newsday on October 6, 1991, that Hill's allegations of harassment were "brought to the attention of the Judiciary Committee" on September 23 -- a time frame that differs from Hill's account -- and the committee "immediately" informed the White House. The White House then "promptly directed the FBI to conduct a full, thorough and expeditious investigation," according to the statement.

September 26, 1991: Three days later, the FBI completed its investigation, and a report was submitted to the White House and the Judiciary Committee, according to Smith's statement. "The White House reviewed the report and determined that the allegation was unfounded," the statement said.

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Jeez. Garland was never subjected to this garbage. Let it play out. everything reads like Animal House characters trying to reconstruct a road trip 40 years later. When did the FBI start investigating penises in faces at college dorm parties?

After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.

How convenient! She recollects it now that Kavanaugh might sit on the highest court in the land. I guess when he was sitting on the second highest court, none of this mattered as much. 

Purely comedic that people are still buying this BS. A true Hail Mary from the left. They will resort to anything - character assassination is their go-to now. Just baffled that so many buffoons fall in line behind these "accusers." 

[Mikey 16,578]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Also, Hill did speak to the committee before the FBI investigation.  From the same timeline article I posted above:

Well then, apparently they didn't catch her lying. Fair enough.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, jw 4 au said:

Pot meet kettle!  Your post is the most politically minded post in this thread so far. And you are too blind to even see it that you accuse a middle of the road post of exactly what you are doing.  It’s like people that DISPISE Rush Limbaugh or Faux News, but then listed to Rachel Maddow or CNN. You live exactly what you hate and accuse others of. This is the problem with our society right now.  People cannot even be honest with themselves  

Mikey is 100% right, good or bad, left or right, up or down, this must be played out to the result. For the Republicans to cave now would give creadence to unsubstantiated claims. This cannot be allowed.  See it from a different angle, what if BK was your son?  What would you believe then???  

1) I don't watch Maddow or any of the talking head shows.  There's way better television on every night.

2) If BK was my son, I don't know what I would believe. I've had a life that's seen privileged dudes do some shady things when it comes to women.  

3)  I made it a point to mention that my post was politically minded.  Look, I'm a practical person.  Ideals are great and we should strive to achieve them, but there are times when doing the smart thing is more important.  If it were all about following our ideals as a nation, then Garland would have gotten a vote.  But McConnell and others made a political bet and won.  My point is, if I were in their shoes, I would be looking hard at using the power I currently have from winning that bet because there's no guarantee it's there beyond January of next year.  If Kavanaugh has to be collateral damage for a bigger end game, so be it.  The SC is more important than one man and the Rs could get someone else through pretty easily without all the drama.  It's truly a once in a generation chance for the party and they may be blowing it.  Hate to say it, but the reality of the situation is that politics are ruthless.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

2) If BK was my son, I don't know what I would believe. I've had a life that's seen privileged dudes do some shady things when it comes to women. 

I would've put a tattoo on his forehead that reads, "sorry for being white."

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

12 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I would've put a tattoo on his forehead that reads, "sorry for being white."

I don't know what his race has anything to do with this conversation.  When I say privileged dudes doing shady things that I've personally seen, I can unequivocally say many were not white.  Privilege comes in many forms.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I don't know what his race has anything to do with this conversation.  When I say privileged dudes doing shady things that I've personally seen, I can unequivocally say many were not white.  Privilege comes in many forms.

Oh yeah that's right. Forgot Thomas was accused too. Maybe there's another distinguishing factor in this context...