Woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

Dang you accuse me of being dense sometimes. I agree BUT neither one has lied to congress yet. Hence my suggestion that the FBI do an investigation AFTER the hearing.

In this case, would you also be willing to hold up any votes until the FBI was done?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

 

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Dang you accuse me of being dense sometimes. I agree BUT neither one has lied to congress yet. Hence my suggestion that the FBI do an investigation AFTER the hearing.

I'm not dense, I'm saying it doesn't matter.  If someone believes or can show anyone perjures themselves, the FBI can open an investigation.  But it's not actually necessary for the FBI to do anything for Congress to charge someone with perjury.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

The question of Kavanaugh withdrawing is now a moot point. He has sent a letter to the judiciary committee saying he stands firm in his denials and intends to strongly defend his honor. against false accusations. Good for him.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I think the difference is that they haven’t been nearly as vocal about their Catholic beliefs as has Barrett. That is what distinguishes it for me.

She'd still go through by at least a 51-49 count on totally partisan lines.  Most likely more than that because unless she's got some serious baggage (and Catholicism isn't), she'll still pull a few Democrat votes from states that went for Trump in 2016.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

The question of Kavanaugh withdrawing is now a moot point. He has sent a letter to the judiciary committee saying he stands firm in his denials and intends to strongly defend his honor. against false accusations. Good for him.

It's not a moot point because it's not really up to him.  If Trump decides the risks outweigh the rewards on sticking with him, he can withdraw his name at anytime.  Not to mention, we still got 2 full days after this before Thursday arrives.  Lots of moving parts.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

I'm not dense, I'm saying it doesn't matter.

 If someone believes or can show anyone perjures themselves, the FBI can open an investigation.  ----not usually unless the perjury is in connection with a federal crime. Nothing Kavanaugh is accused of is a federal crime.

But it's not actually necessary for the FBI to do anything for Congress to charge someone with perjury.---exactly but neither has yet testified before Congress so why would Congress charge them with perjury before their testimony.

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It's not a moot point because it's not really up to him.  If Trump decides the risks outweigh the rewards on sticking with him, he can withdraw his name at anytime.  Not to mention, we still got 2 full days after this before Thursday arrives.  Lots of moving parts.

Read slowly......I said Kavanaugh said HE wasn't withdrawing. I didn't say Trump couldn't withdraw his nomination.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

4 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

----not usually unless the perjury is in connection with a federal crime. Nothing Kavanaugh is accused of is a federal crime.

 

4 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

But it's not actually necessary for the FBI to do anything for Congress to charge someone with perjury.---exactly but neither has yet testified before Congress so why would Congress charge the with perjury before their testimony.

Ok, I'm still not getting what doing an investigation after their testimony gains you.  No one is suggesting that there be perjury charges *before* the testimony.  That makes no sense.  The point is, the FBI isn't necessary here as it pertains to perjury.  They testify under oath, if they perjure themselves, Congress charges them.  Simple.  

Maybe I am dense, but I suspect you just aren't explaining this well. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

8 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Read slowly......I said Kavanaugh said HE wasn't withdrawing. I didn't say Trump couldn't withdraw his nomination.

Ok, let me explain something to you:  SCOTUS nominees withdrawing their names is almost 100% done at the discretion of the President, not the nominee.  Sometimes they withdraw it for the nominee and other times they allow them to do it and make it look like it was their decision. It's not unlike coaching searches where right before someone is named, all the other candidates "withdraw their name."  It's a song and dance.  What really happened was they were told they weren't getting the job and the school is letting them save some face.

So this is a nitpicky point.  So as of right now, Kavanaugh claims he won't withdraw.  While that's still subject to change before Thursday, it's a minor and unimportant point.  If his name is withdrawn whether it comes from his own personal letterhead or White House letterhead, it will be because he was told that's what was going to happen.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

Ok, I'm still not getting what doing an investigation after their testimony gains you.  --because that is the only time any perjury will be committed as you yourself note. One of them will likely be lying.

  No one is suggesting that there be perjury charges *before* the testimony.--your posts give that impression the FBI could do that before the hearing

 

 

Please go back an read my original post about this. I simply thought it would be interesting if the FBI conducted an investigation AFTER thy testify.  What is wrong with that?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

Please go back an read my original post about this. I simply thought it would be interesting if the FBI conducted an investigation AFTER thy testify.  What is wrong with that?

I don't suppose there's anything *wrong* with it.  I just don't really see what difference it makes.  And unless they have a *really* good reason to do so, it seems like a waste of resources.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Ok, let me explain something to you:  SCOTUS nominees withdrawing their names is almost 100% done at the discretion of the President, not the nominee.  Sometimes they withdraw it for the nominee and other times they allow them to do it and make it look like it was their decision. It's not unlike coaching searches where right before someone is named, all the other candidates "withdraw their name."  It's a song and dance.  What really happened was they were told they weren't getting the job and the school is letting them save some face.

So this is a nitpicky point.  So as of right now, Kavanaugh claims he won't withdraw.  While that's still subject to change before Thursday, it's a minor and unimportant point.  If his name is withdrawn whether it comes from his own personal letterhead or White House letterhead, it will be because he was told that's what was going to happen.

I agree it's nitpicky but I simply reported what Kavanaugh said during a discussion about HIM withdrawing.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

I agree it's nitpicky but I simply reported what Kavanaugh said during a discussion about HIM withdrawing.

Ok?

But point of fact, we'd been freely interchanging Kavanaugh withdrawing and being withdrawn throughout and you didn't quote any particular post.  I think mine was a reasonable inference to make in that context.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't suppose there's anything *wrong* with it.---then why your original comment?

 I just don't really see what difference it makes. --you have correctly answered that yourself

And unless they have a *really* good reason to do so, it seems like a waste of resources.--Oh I agree. Same as with any further investigations before the hearing.

 

[Mikey 16,638]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Sure it's that simple.  You withdraw his name and within 24 hours you name a new nominee.  Schedule the hearings for next week and vote.  

Then in less than 24 hours someone else speaks out with "This new he/she grabbed my titty in seventh grade. Or maybe it was sixth grade or possibly eighth grade and maybe at school or maybe at somebody's birthday party but I'm sure it happened".

No, this case must be met head-on and resolved for the sake of future years.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

4 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I don't suppose there's anything *wrong* with it.---then why your original comment?

I guess because my point the entire time was that it wasn't necessary and I didn't get why you thought it was important.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

4 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Then in less than 24 hours someone else speaks out with "This new he/she grabbed my titty in seventh grade. Or maybe it was sixth grade or possibly eighth grade and maybe at school or maybe at somebody's birthday party but I'm sure it happened".

No, this case must be met head-on and resolved for the sake of future years.

Meh.  If that was their strategy they'd have used it vs Gorsuch.  But the truth is, charges like that don't tend to stick to people who didn't grab titties, pins women to the bed with a hand over their mouths while removing their clothes, or pull out their dick and jab it in women's faces.

[Mikey 16,638]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Meh.  If that was their strategy they'd have used it vs Gorsuch.  But the truth is, charges like that don't tend to stick to people who didn't grab titties, pins women to the bed with a hand over their mouths while removing their clothes, or pull out their dick and jab it in women's faces.

The times they are a' changin'. It worked with Moore, who I found to be despicable for reasons other than unsubstantiated allegations. Why not move up a few notches and try it again? To date, there is nothing in Kavanaugh's past to indicate such behavior except questionable claims.

A NYT reporter interviewed on TV around noon CST said the Times is not reporting further on the second accuser because they interviewed too many people, around two dozen, who dispute her claim. Of course, with news changing hourly I don't know how long that will hold true, but that was the statement today at noon.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

9 minutes ago, Mikey said:

The times they are a' changin'. It worked with Moore, who I found to be despicable for reasons other than unsubstantiated allegations. Why not move up a few notches and try it again? To date, there is nothing in Kavanaugh's past to indicate such behavior except questionable claims.

It worked because there was something to it.  Even folks who it hadn't happened to up there knew enough about him to think to themselves, "Yep, that's sounds about right."  

And Republicans could have rejected the claims and voted for him anyway.  They chose not to because in their hearts, they believed the claims were true and couldn't justify to themselves pulling the lever for him.

 

Quote

A NYT reporter interviewed on TV around noon CST said the Times is not reporting further on the second accuser because they interviewed too many people, around two dozen, who dispute her claim. Of course, with news changing hourly I don't know how long that will hold true, but that was the statement today at noon.

We'll see.  It could be untrue.  All of it.  My bottom line is simply that she (Mrs. Ford) deserves to be heard and taken seriously, not dismissed or treated flippantly.  Because she also has nothing in her past to indicate that she's one to make outlandish claims or false allegations against people.  She's an accomplished professional with an excellent reputation.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

She'd still go through by at least a 51-49 count on totally partisan lines.  Most likely more than that because unless she's got some serious baggage (and Catholicism isn't), she'll still pull a few Democrat votes from states that went for Trump in 2016.

See, we can have civil discourse.  Congrats to us, right?

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, WDavE said:

On the Ford accusation, everyone else that was supposedly in the room.

On the second accusation the only thing close to collaborating  evidence is from a person who heard about the incident from someone else.

Plus the idiot representative from Hawaii has come out and stated she could tell Kavanaugh was guilty while just talking to him before the accusation were made public. What an anomaly she is. a democratic. female liberal with esp. Wait till Netflix finds out!

 

It just doesn't get more definitive then all of this. Unless of course, you were the accused and this was the evidence against you. Then you would be hollering at the top of your lungs.

 

 

Please cite or reference any witness literally stating "it didn't happen" other than BK.

This is not about inference. It's about literal words.  Someone saying "I don't remember", I wasn't at the party" or "I don't know Kavanaugh" is not the same as saying "it didn't happen".

And I think the only two people that Ford claimed were in the room were Kavanaugh and Judge.

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

We’re buried in unhealthy precedents. Republicans can choose their priority. But if they think they ultimately lose, they can speed the process and get a win. Let’s not fool ourselves— this is all about outcomes for the Rs.

If worries about unsubstantiated allegations, have the FBI quietly investigate.

After Garland, the "unhealthy precedent" argument seem rather hypocritical.  What goes around, comes around.  And that was huge.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Please cite or reference any witness literally stating "it didn't happen" other than BK.

This is not about inference. It's about literal words.  Someone saying I don't remember, I wasn't there or I don't know Kavanaugh is not the same as saying it didn't happen.

And I think the only two people that Ford claimed were in the room were Kavanaugh and Judge.

I guess my concern is this: at what point do we deem the allegations "substantiated," if we aren't to be bound by legal thresholds, to the extent that BK is unqualified to serve? Are people wrong if they construe the matter as a political maneuver to prevent President Trump from appointing another justice, conditioned on a turning of the tide after primaries and subsequently a holding-off until he is out of office - the earliest being 2021? For example, should Dems have a favorable outcome after November, would they ever vote for a DT appointee (use his short-list as example, assuming an alternative Justice would come from it)? 

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

She got some snide remarks from Dianne Feinstein when she was being nominated to the federal courts over it.  Something like "the dogma lives loud within you" or some such.  But I doubt it would be a real roadblock.

Being a Catholic is not a problem. 

This concerns me though:

After Barrett’s confirmation hearing but before the Senate voted on her nomination, The New York Times reported that Barrett was a member of a group called People of Praise.” Group members, the Times indicated, “swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another, and are assigned and accountable to a personal adviser.” Moreover, the Times added, the group “teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority for their family.” And legal experts questioned whether such oaths “could raise legitimate questions about a judicial nominee’s independence and impartiality.”

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/potential-nominee-profile-amy-coney-barrett/

[AUDub 11,158]