Sign in to follow this  
darkblue

65 Women from Kavanaugh's High School Days Come Together to Call Out Scummy Feinstein on Her Dirty ****

407 posts in this topic

On a CNN interview this morning Blassey Ford's lawyer said that her client is willing to tell her story before Congress.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TomJH said:

On a CNN interview this morning Blassey Ford's lawyer said that her client is willing to tell her story before Congress.

 

Yes, and interesting that she gave the story to the Washington Post BEFORE Kavanaugh was a nominee.  She did not want to come forward thinking that the Republicans would push through his nomination anyway and that she would encounter threats.  Guess what - she was right about that.

No one is calling for Kavanaugh to take a lie detector test like she did.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Yes, and interesting that she gave the story to the Washington Post BEFORE Kavanaugh was a nominee.

 

Just thought this sentence deserved repeating for those who claim the story is a fabricated political hack job designed to sabotage a Trump nominee.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TomJH said:

Just thought this sentence deserved repeating for those who claim the story is a fabricated political hack job designed to sabotage a Trump nominee.

And as I just said in the whoppers thread where is the GOP and the President when it comes to vetting their own lousy choices?  Why shoot the messenger?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

And as I just said in the whoppers thread where is the GOP and the President when it comes to vetting their own lousy choices?  Why shoot the messenger?

1p5lm7.jpg

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hamradio said:

IF it happened!

After 30+ years and everyone virtually falling down drunk at the time of ALLEGED event.

 

I can barely remember my HS days and was sober 24 /7.

Being falling down drunk does not excuse sexual assault, and age 17 is old enough to be prosecuted for such a crime in the state of Maryland, which is where the alleged event occurred. This is not Johnny booby trapping Susie's locker because she wouldn't go to prom with him so that a bunch of balloon animals pop out when she opens the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, calvinnme said:

17 is old enough to be prosecuted

Wasn't, though. Too late now even if it did happen - which it didn't.

She says there was a witness. The "witness" says she's full of ****.

All of this 37 years ago drunky laughy wrestly whatever involving three high school minors is totally and completely irrelevant to finding this judge qualified for the Supreme Court.

So - so - so many people need to grow the hell up, know what I mean.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, darkblue said:

Wasn't. though. Too late now even if it did happen - which it didn't.

She says there was a witness. The "witness" says she's full of ****.

All of this 37 years ago drunky laughy wrestly whatever involving three high school minors is totally and completely irrelevant to finding this judge qualified for the Supreme Court. 

So - so - so many people need to grow the hell up, know what I mean.

I've said before - none of this rises to evidence necessary to indict or convict a person of sexual assault. No corroborating witness. No physical evidence. Way past the statute of limitations. I don't stamp FELON on somebody's forehead unless I am sure beyond a reasonable doubt. This is an inquiry into the character of a person who will sit on the Supreme Court for the rest of his natural life should he so desire. Let's make sure the senators voting have all of the pertinent information before doing so.  A person in high school does not have the judgment of an adult just five years later. There is a world of difference between 16-17 and 21-22 years of age.  Teens are given to rash actions. However, your basic sense of right and wrong is set before you reach those teen years. You know it is wrong to steal, to kill, and to force yourself on others. Kavanaugh is accused of a serious act after he was old enough to know it was wrong.

How are you so sure it didn't happen? I'm not sure it did or did not happen. That's why I want more inquiry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure.

People can say anything - and millions of Democrats have lost the ability to determine right from wrong in their derangement and hatred.

Kavanaugh is going to be the next Supreme Court Justice because absolutely no cause for disallowing it has been presented with any veracity whatsoever.

All those who continue to gnash and wail over this farce of an accusation are just plain pathetic.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JR33928 said:

This slimy business of going back to Kavanaugh's high school days to investigate what he may or may not have done when he was just a teenager and a juvenile,is nuts.

If we did that to everybody in gov't there wouldn't be one man or woman left in Congress,the Supreme court,FBI,DOJ or anywhere else in gov't.Just about every kid did stupid things they aren't proud of or would want known by the world when they were teenegers.

I wonder what kind of bad behavior Diane Feinstein is guilty of when she was a teenager...maybe they should immediately start an investigation into her teenage years,i'd bet they'd come up with plenty of dirt on her.

I think they should leave a persons history when they were a juvenile alone.Even the law discounts a persons juvenile history when they become adults.

Obviously a Trumpist.  It is important that as a 17 year old, he would do something such as this.  I sure as hell never did anything such as alleged and nor did any males that I knew.  In fact, never even attended parties where this type activity might occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, calvinnme said:

How are you so sure it didn't happen? I'm not sure it did or did not happen. That's why I want more inquiry.

More inquiry isn't going to expose what really happened.   That is just the reality of these type of situations when the accuser comes forward decades later.

As for statute of limitations:   CA recently extended these due to the Cosby case.  

I believe that was a mistake and I would have shorten the time period since the best way to reduce sexual harassment and assault is to expose the perpetrator shortly after the incidence.     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

never even attended parties where this type activity might occur.

You were invited to a party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

More inquiry isn't going to expose what really happened.

That's for sure.

Best thing to do - for the sake of all the cry baby metoo'ers - is to let her come in on Thursday and say what she wants to say.

Then have the vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone

This is an important topic, and one that sparks strong opinions on all sides. 

We have removed all posts that violated our Code of Conduct. We do this so the discussion may be allowed to continue, rather than be removed. But please be advised that if any further violations occur, we will be forced to close it down. 

While we realize emotions can run high with this type of discussion, we also request that those of you participating remember our guidelines. If you feel someone is making comments to "bait" you, disregarding them is the best course of action. Instead, report the post, and we will review it. We remove threads only as a last resort, and/or when they contain too many posts with violations and cleaning it up would remove a large portion of the discussion. We hope this discussion can continue in a polite, and constructive fashion. 

Thank you!  

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

More inquiry isn't going to expose what really happened.   That is just the reality of these type of situations when the accuser comes forward decades later.

As for statute of limitations:   CA recently extended these due to the Cosby case.  

I believe that was a mistake and I would have shorten the time period since the best way to reduce sexual harassment and assault is to expose the perpetrator shortly after the incidence.     

 

The Cosby case was a unique one. I believe in extending the statute of limitations where there is DNA evidence. Otherwise, I do not. The Golden State Killer is going to get away with all of those rapes he committed because they occurred in the 1970s, long before DNA evidence was around. In criminal cases you can't just rely on witness memory after a certain period of time has expired. The Kavanaugh case is not a criminal case or even a civil one. I would be against either a civil or criminal case being brought against him based on memory only after such a long period of time. 

At least the Golden State Killer will be in jail for the rest of his natural life. At age 72 though, that is not much of a consolation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, calvinnme said:

The Cosby case was a unique one. I believe in extending the statute of limitations where there is DNA evidence. Otherwise, I do not. The Golden State Killer is going to get away with all of those rapes he committed because they occurred in the 1970s, long before DNA evidence was around. In criminal cases you can't just rely on witness memory after a certain period of time has expired. The Kavanaugh case is not a criminal case or even a civil one. I would be against either a civil or criminal case being brought against him based on memory only after such a long period of time. 

At least the Golden State Killer will be in jail for the rest of his natural life. At age 72 though, that is not much of a consolation.

I'm either not following you or you're not making sense:    For there to be DNA evidence that legal authorities have obtained (e.g. the police),  that means the alleged victim had to quickly report the alleged assault to those legal authorities and these authorities can then determine if there was a crime committed or not (and therefore no need to extend the statute of limitations).

(the goal here is to get alleged victims to report  alleged crimes shortly after they occur so that evidence can be gathered and a longer statute of limitation does the opposite).

 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I'm either not following you or you're not making sense:    For there to be DNA evidence that legal authorities have obtained (e.g. the police),  that means the alleged victim had to quickly report the alleged assault to those legal authorities and these authorities can then determine if there was a crime committed or not (and therefore no need to extend the statute of limitations).

 

  

 

I can see how you would be confused. Everything you say about collection of evidence is true. However, before there was such a thing as DNA evidence, all that the physical evidence could do was say this person might have been the attacker or could not be the attacker. It was not the identifying marker it was today. Thus there was a statute of limitations whether there was a report of a crime and physical evidence or not. Once DNA became a tool of crime solvers, it could say there is a one in 7 billion chance you are not the attacker. In the face of such daunting statistics many states extended their statute of limitations for rape if DNA evidence existed since DNA evidence never forgets. I hope that this is clearer.

Some rapists - usually the rarer stranger rapist - wear condoms just to try to prevent the collection of DNA evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I'm either not following you or you're not making sense:    For there to be DNA evidence that legal authorities have obtained (e.g. the police),  that means the alleged victim had to quickly report the alleged assault to those legal authorities and these authorities can then determine if there was a crime committed or not (and therefore no need to extend the statute of limitations).

Unless the suspect is unknown and his matching DNA doesn't come into the hands of the authorities until many years later.

That's only applicable to rape by a stranger, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, calvinnme said:

I hope that this is clearer.

Not really. There's an awful lot of accusations of "attempted rape" going around (as is the case with this Kavanaugh accuser).

If I were to bump into you accidentally and you think it was on purpose, is that attempted rape? Or "just" sexual assault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

frankly find the question of his perjury much more compelling...........

Brett Kavanaugh may have perjured himself — but mainstream media doesn’t want to talk about it

There’s a legitimate argument that Kavanaugh lied under oath in 2004 and 2006. Major outlets are ducking the issue

https://www.salon.com/2018/09/14/brett-kavanaugh-may-have-perjured-himself-but-mainstream-media-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-it/

As New Evidence Shows Judge Kavanaugh Committed Perjury Before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Government Watchdogs Call for an Impeachment Investigation

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2018/09/10/new-evidence-shows-judge-kavanaugh-committed-perjury-us-senate-judiciary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, darkblue said:

Not really. There's an awful lot of accusations of "attempted rape" going around (as is the case with this Kavanaugh accuser).

If I were to bump into you accidentally and you think it was on purpose, is that attempted rape? Or "just" sexual assault?

The Kavanaugh accuser would have neither a criminal nor civil case after this many years. She would have a hard time with a criminal case if it happened yesterday. With no real physical evidence and no witnesses, even if some DA is willing to try the case there is reasonable doubt. I think you need to be clear on this. I am not saying Kavanaugh should go to jail today based on the evidence of what happened in 1983, or whenever it was. This entire event goes to the fitness of character of a potential Supreme Court justice.

As for people bumping into one another, this is the source of many misunderstandings these days. I will agree with you on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, calvinnme said:

The Kavanaugh accuser would have neither a criminal nor civil case after this many years. She would have a hard time with a criminal case if it happened yesterday. With no real physical evidence and no witnesses, even if some DA is willing to try the case there is reasonable doubt.

Yeah, no kidding.

But what's any of that got to do with your discussion with james regarding rape, statutes of limitation, Cosby, DNA evidence and even the Golden State Killer?

No wonder james doesn't understand what you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, darkblue said:

May have perjured himself??

Did he or didn't he?

may be the question Congress should answer before they do any voting

<_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us