Did Judge Kavanaugh

[Starbuck1975]

Oh, he needed to lie about a BJ. I get it.

You are like a fucking window.

You’re like the bird sh!t sticking to it.

 

[interchange]

Kavanaugh wasn’t a priority for an entire year. If the case for perjury had any merit, given the predictions of judicial apocalypse, it absolutely would have been a priority.

Keep on with that circular reasoning.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Oh, he needed to lie about a BJ. I get it.

You are like a fucking window.

lol, he thinks it's a mirror.

 

[interchange]

As I remember the way it went was that Kavanaugh's name wasn't in the mix until it became a story.

The name wasn't in the therapy notes. It would have been improper to have put it in there. Ford's husband stated he remembered her using Kavanaugh's name during the session. Ford contacted her Congresswoman when Kavanaugh's name was reported to the media to be on the short list for nomination, not after he was nominated. She passed a polygraph by the FBI and met with Eshoo who involved Feinstein. Feinstein actually did not bring up Ford's allegation during the initial hearing because Ford didn't want her to out of confidentiality fears. It wasn't until the fact that Feinstein was withholding an allegation against Kavanaugh from the committee was leaked to the press and people started tracking down Ford's identity that she decided to come forward.

Anyway, any evidence to support your theory?

 

[Starbuck1975]

It wasn't until the fact that she was withholding an allegation against Kavanaugh from the committee was leaked to the press and people started tracking down Ford's identity that she decided to come forward.

At least you finally acknowledge that it was someone shoving Dr. Ford into the firing line that set off this chain of events. Not evidence or the desires of the victim, but political opportunism.

 

[interchange]

At least you finally acknowledge that it was someone shoving Dr. Ford into the firing line that set off this chain of events. Not evidence or the desires of the victim, but political opportunism.

It also has nothing to do with her credibility except actually to bolster it. If you feel that the way in which the situation was handled is so inappropriate that we should not consider Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence related to it, why aren't you advocating for a proper investigation?

 

[Starbuck1975]

It also has nothing to do with her credibility except actually to bolster it. If you feel that the way in which the situation was handled is so inappropriate that we should not consider Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence related to it, why aren't you advocating for a proper investigation?

I think it weakens it. I don’t think Feinstein saw the allegations as strong or credible enough, which is why she sat on it despite ample opportunities to introduce them. The FBI did investigate the Dr Ford allegations. She was given the opportunity to testify.

There is even a path to file criminal charges in the state of Maryland. No charges filed as of yet.

 

[interchange]

I think it weakens it. I don’t think Feinstein saw the allegations as strong or credible enough, which is why she sat on it despite ample opportunities to introduce them. The FBI did investigate the Dr Ford allegations. She was given the opportunity to testify.

Do you have any evidence to support your explanation of Feinstein's choice, particularly because it is inconsistent with her statements, Ford's statements, and Ford's prior actions to try and maintain her privacy in bringing this event to their attention?

Do you think that the FBI was allowed to perform a proper investigation? Do you think that the Kavanaugh hearings were conducted in a manner that was appropriate?

There is even a path to file criminal charges in the state of Maryland. No charges filed as of yet.

That would be a truly exceptional action. As I have stated, RAINN data shows that less than 1% of rapes overall see criminal justice. To pursue charges against a Supreme Court Justice in this political environment with an accuser who isn't asking to press charges would be unprecedented.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Do you have any evidence to support your explanation of Feinstein's choice, particularly because it is inconsistent with her statements, Ford's statements, and Ford's prior actions to try and maintain her privacy in bringing this event to their attention?

The respect to her privacy was paramount. Whoever leaked her information is who turned this into a political spectacle.

Do you think that the FBI was allowed to perform a proper investigation? Do you think that the Kavanaugh hearings were conducted in a manner that was appropriate?

I think Avenatti clouded the focus with his attention whoring antics, and gave the GOP all the cover they needed to dismiss the entire affair.

That would be a truly exceptional action. As I have stated, RAINN data shows that less than 1% of rapes overall see criminal justice. To pursue charges against a Supreme Court Justice in this political environment with an accuser who isn't asking to press charges would be unprecedented.

It would also be unprecedented to impeach a SCOTUS judge for allegedly lying about his high school and college drinking habits. There is no precedence to any of this.

 

[Lanyap]

I'm a little confused. What makes you the authority on what is subjective and therefore irrelevant? Seems like if someone disagrees with that assessment there ought to be some attempt to reconcile the difference.

Let’s assume the FBI and/or other entities fully investigate the issue of his drinking habits in high school and college. And let’s say they identify his classmates in high school and college and interview most or all of them. How many incidents, what level of inebriation and how many witnesses should it take to determine if he perjured himself and who should make that decision? Should any direct witnesses found be required to testify under oath and be "cross examined"?

BTW, I believe the FBI investigation should have been more thorough.

 

[interchange]

The respect to her privacy was paramount. Whoever leaked her information is who turned this into a political spectacle.

I think Avenatti clouded the focus with his attention whoring antics, and gave the GOP all the cover they needed to dismiss the entire affair.

I agree with these statements. I also am troubled that this means Kavanaugh hasn't had a fair look into his behavior which may have included sexual assault. I think the idea, as atrocious as the thought of forgiving sexual assault is, that his high school behavior doesn't matter to his ability to serve on the Supreme Court, is actually worth considering. However, if we had any hope of that possibility it has been nullified by his testimony. I think the real victims here are survivors of sexual assault and (largely women) those who have to incorporate the reality of possible sexual assault into their daily lives. They more than anybody deserve a fair look into things regardless of the outcome. It is deeply unsettling how many people casually disregarded that for political purpose.

It would also be unprecedented to impeach a SCOTUS judge for allegedly lying about his high school and college drinking habits. There is no precedence to any of this.

True in the precedence thing. Mostly I just was searching for a word different than exceptional to describe the notion of prosecuting him in criminal court. By raw statistics, it is actually (sadly) exceptional to prosecute any rape. I can't imagine the politics of this makes anyone more willing to seek prosecution here.

Let’s assume the FBI and/or other entities fully investigate the issue of his drinking habits in high school and college. And let’s say they identify his classmates in high school and college and interview most or all of them. How many incidents, what level of inebriation and how many witnesses should it take to determine if he perjured himself and who should make that decision? Should any direct witnesses found be required to testify under oath and be "cross examined"?

BTW, I believe the FBI investigation should have been more thorough.

It's hard to say what the threshold should be. There is probable cause to investigate. I think the FBI investigating without any instruction on how from the White House or Congress and delivering their findings to the appropriate Congressional committees to evaluate and decide on opening an impeachment inquiry is appropriate. Should they testify and face cross examination? If they want their accounts to be available as evidence in an impeachment inquiry, yes. Should they be forced to? No.

 

[Lanyap]

The name wasn't in the therapy notes. It would have been improper to have put it in there. Ford's husband stated he remembered her using Kavanaugh's name during the session. Ford contacted her Congresswoman when Kavanaugh's name was reported to the media to be on the short list for nomination, not after he was nominated.

Ford's therapy session where she discussed the incident came several weeks after speculation emerged in the media that Kav was a front runner for SC nomination if Romney won. She did not pursue any action when he did not become a nominee.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...urt-frontrunners-emerge-idUSBRE83I18U20120419

SUPREME COURTAPRIL 19, 2012 / 2:29 PM / 7 YEARS AGO
Analysis: A Romney pick for top U.S. court? Frontrunners emerge
...
Mentioned as often as Clement is Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Kavanaugh, 47, sits on a court that produced four sitting justices. He has deep roots in Washington, D.C., having worked in the Bush White House and assisted in the 1990s investigation that nearly led to President Bill Clinton’s ouster.
...

She passed a polygraph by the FBI

The FBI did not perform the polygraph. Ford's attorneys hired a retired FBI agent with polygraph examiner experience to perform it. She gave her account and was only asked two questions.

Not a sure thing.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christ...e-polygraph-results-on-kavanaugh-allegations/

Results of a polygraph test taken by Judge Brett Kavanaugh accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, indicate her responses to the two questions asked of her about her sexual assault allegations against him to be "not indicative of deception," according to the report on the polygraph.

The polygraph test was administered on August 7, one week after she wrote a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein detailing her story of the assault. For the test, Ford gave her account, in which she alleges that when they were both in high school, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed during a party and groped her, trying to remove her clothing. When she tried to scream, Ford said Kavanaugh held his hand over her mouth.

Following Ford's interview she was given a polygraph examination with the following two questions:

1) Is any part of your statement false?
2) Did you make up any part of your statement?

Ford answered "no" to both questions. "Blasey's responses to the above relevant questions are not indicative of deception," the report read. Two more analyses of Ford's responses also suggested she had been truthful.

Jerry Hanafin, who conducted the polygraph test, told CBS News' Ed O'Keefe that it was unlikely that in her response, Ford believed something that was not true, and passed the test because she believed it was true. Hanafin said that when he first met Ford, she was nervous, like most people who take polygraphs are. He added that it was an "unremarkable" test, which is standard.

And this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/politics/blasey-ford-republicans-kavanaugh.html

The former boyfriend told the Judiciary Committee that he witnessed Dr. Blasey helping a friend prepare for a possible polygraph examination, contradicting her testimony under oath. Dr. Blasey, a psychology professor from California who also goes by her married name Ford, was asked during the hearing whether she had “ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test.” She answered, “Never.”

But the former boyfriend, whose name was redacted from a copy of the sworn statement provided by a person supporting Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, said that when they were together in the 1990s he saw Dr. Blasey use her understanding of psychology to assist her roommate of the time, Monica L. McLean, before interviews for possible positions with the F.B.I. or the United States Attorney’s office that might require her to take a lie-detector test.

“I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam,” the man said in the statement. “Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam.”

And this.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news...next-to-kavanaughs-name-when-he-rules-on-roe/

Blasey Ford’s Lawyer Admits Client Wants ‘Asterisk’ Next to Kavanaugh’s Name When He Rules on Roe

 

[interchange]

Ford's therapy session where she discussed the incident came several weeks after speculation emerged in the media that Kav was a front runner for SC nomination if Romney won. She did not pursue any action when he did not become a nominee.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...urt-frontrunners-emerge-idUSBRE83I18U20120419

That's news to me. It definitely moves my needle more toward Kavanaugh than it was before. Not past preponderance territory in my view.

The FBI did not perform the polygraph. Ford's attorneys hired a retired FBI agent with polygraph examiner experience to perform it.

That's my mistake, although I don't know how whether the FBI performed it or a retired FBI agent performed it is of relevance

She gave her account and was only asked two questions.

Not a sure thing.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christ...e-polygraph-results-on-kavanaugh-allegations/

This is a standard for giving polygraphs to sexual assault victims because trauma responses can give false positives for lies. In this case, "not indicative of deception" and "unremarkable" are exactly what would be expected for someone telling the truth. They are, of course, not a guarantee that someone is telling the truth.

And this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/politics/blasey-ford-republicans-kavanaugh.html

OK. You obviously have to make of that what you will. I personally am not concerned that Christine Blasey Ford didn't remember a conversation 20+ years ago that had no reason to be remarkable to her at the time.

 

[pcgeek11]

The name wasn't in the therapy notes. It would have been improper to have put it in there. Ford's husband stated he remembered her using Kavanaugh's name during the session. Ford contacted her Congresswoman when Kavanaugh's name was reported to the media to be on the short list for nomination, not after he was nominated. She passed a polygraph by the FBI and met with Eshoo who involved Feinstein. Feinstein actually did not bring up Ford's allegation during the initial hearing because Ford didn't want her to out of confidentiality fears. It wasn't until the fact that Feinstein was withholding an allegation against Kavanaugh from the committee was leaked to the press and people started tracking down Ford's identity that she decided to come forward.

Anyway, any evidence to support your theory?

I have as much evidence as Mrs Ford...

 

[interchange]

I have as much evidence as Mrs Ford...

Pure bullshit. We don't have to keep going if you are done.

 

[pcgeek11]

Pure bullshit. We don't have to keep going if you are done.

Fine by me, You keep on believing what you desire irregardless of the total lack of real evidence.

 

[interchange]

Fine by me, You keep on believing what you desire irregardless of the total lack of real evidence.

Bullshit #2.

 

[cytg111]

I have as much evidence as Mrs Ford...

Evidence (law) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dumbass. Again.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Bullshit #2.

*Shrug*, dats geek.

 

[hal2kilo]

Well, look over here. Background check? What background check? Whitehouse seems to have it out for the FBI. This must have been one of the unanswered things he was talking about with Wray during the Jan. 6 th hearings.
Looks like frat boy got a pass.

Democratic senator calls on Biden's DOJ to probe the FBI's "fake" investigation into Brett Kavanaugh | Salon.com

 

[conehead433]

If you are a Republican you get a pass for raping 13 year olds and other stuff like that. Sniffing women's hair and other non touching advances gets you in a heap of trouble if you are a Democrat.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

If you are a Republican you get a pass for raping 13 year olds and other stuff like that. Sniffing women's hair and other non touching advances gets you in a heap of trouble if you are a Democrat.

Won't SOMEONE think of the CHILDREN?!?!!?

Please seek mental help lol

 

[IronWing]

Won't SOMEONE think of the CHILDREN?!?!!?

Please seek mental help lol


View attachment 41238

Roy Moore thinks of nothing but children, but you knew that and are still a Republican boot licker. Your depravity has no bottom.

 

[Meghan54]

Roy Moore thinks of nothing but children, but you knew that and are still a Republican boot licker. Your depravity has no bottom.

To be honest, he doesn't appear to be bothered by anything Republicans do....

 

[HomerJS]

Won't SOMEONE think of the CHILDREN?!?!!?

Please seek mental help lol


View attachment 41238

The Roy Moore lover comes out of the closet