Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand why Ford did not report this to the Montgomery County police when she decided to come forward. Certainly a police department would do more investigation than a FBI background check.

What could the police do at this late stage? More than three decades have passed, and not only does she not know where and when this happened, the witnesses she said could collaborate her story said they have no recollection of it. Even her best friend, whom she said was at the gathering, said she never even met Kavanaugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So 16:25 and 16:36. Both of you are perfectly fine with people telling stories years later that trash another human being knowing they have no credible sources to verify their information? So if I see someone shoplifting and know who it is, I can spill my guts 35 years later without having any proof just to make sure that person's reputation was smeared? I actually did observe someone shoplifting as a child and can vaguely pinpoint where it was and what time of year and I know who did it. Do I know the shop? Nope. Did I say anything at the time? Only to a friend who I haven't contacted. Maybe I should look up the shoplifter and let everyone they currently work with know of this observation from so many years ago just to be sure they don't get elected to a high position.

Does this make any sense for me to do? Does this action leave me blameless? Am I not just as guilty for bringing up this issue from the past that I have no proof of?

Not either of those posters, but sure, go ahead and take a polygraph. Have you mentioned it to anyone in prior years? That would help corroborate your case. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor, though. Not quite as serious as sexual assault. Unless you're a republican, apparently. To them, sexual assault seems to be no big deal, and the victim is the one who gets punished.

Apparently for a liberal it's no big deal either because all that matters according to 16:36 is that the victim is ready to report it. all that is needed of us is to believe the victim. No proof necessary or need for any witnesses. Just a feeling like the accusation is correct like reading a Huffpost or Breibart article without fact checking it. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a belief for 16:36 which is all the more ironic since we're talking about the hiring of a judge. Also ironic because there are people saying well if only the FBI investigated further. What further investigation do you think they could do regarding an allegation from 35 years ago that the victim can't even remember basic event details? From the beginning it was obvious that the key people weren't supporting the allegation and there was nothing the FBI could do further.

Do you really think a polygraph test is enough to convict someone, particularly one done by a private hire? Kavanaugh is still innocent until proven guilty and it was known from the beginning that Ford didn't have anyone else to corroborate her story. She knew from the beginning what the result would be, so then what is the motive other than to defame him? I disagree that I'm just a victim when I decide to come forward with an allegation with no proof. I then become an accuser and an alleged victim and should be dealt with accordingly. She deserves the same.

I am 16:36, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said the victim's story alone should be dispositive for a criminal conviction (which is where innocent until proven guilty comes into lay), I just said that as long as a victim is telling the truth, I'm okay with them sharing their story whenever they choose rather than being barred by some social, rather than legal, statute of limitations. I have zero sympathy for a perpetrator who thought they were getting away with something because the victim didn't report it right away, only to suffer some reputational harm but no criminal culpability when their misdeeds are revealed years later. Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth.

Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth

This statement is basically saying your view your own opinion or feeling as more important in determining the truth than facts and innocent until proven guilty.

I really haven't put much stock into whether Kavanaugh is telling the truth about the event or even if Ford is. In my eyes the accusation was for Dr. Ford to prove, not for him to defend or for me to believe her based on her words. I just don't see that Ford has given evidence to her claim. That makes Kavanaugh innocent in my eyes because I believe innocent until proven guilty. It's about facts not belief.

So what I’m hearing is that you think no victim of a crime should speak up unless they have incontrovertible proof at the time they make the initial accusation of the accused’s guilt. Because even if the accused is, in fact, guilty, it’s not fair to tarnish the accused’s reputation with an allegation that you may not be able to definitively prove in court, regardless of whether it’s true.

And in that case, maybe you shouldn’t accuse Ford of being a criminal who conspired with Democrats to make up a malicious allegation to slander Kavanaugh, because you can’t definitively prove that either so clearly you’re just trying to trnish her reputation, which is something you admit is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he would have been confirmed even if there was evidence to prove the truth of the story.

Let's say that he did what she said...do you disqualify a person for an offense that was 35 years ago when they were a teen when as an adult there isn't a single compliant by any woman he has worked with or known socially but in fact gets high compliments from?

If he lies about it when confronted to try to cover it up, yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not remembering things, such as parties, doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because one of Ford's friends doesn't remember being with Kavanaugh 35 years ago, that in no way exonerates Kavanaugh.

Exactly.

Neither does it support Ford. And that none of her witnesses remember such a gathering, or anything similar, does benefit Kavanaugh and hurt Ford.

Exactly. Ford was known as a binge drinker at Holton Arms.

And?

We will never know because it was never investigated. It certainly seens plausible. So they will both live in the shadow of uncertainty.

When people were asking for an investigation, after the 4 named witnesses submitted statements to the Senate, several of us asked what an investigation would do. The 4 named witnesses already said they can't support Ford's statement. We were told that people might talk to FBI investigators differently than they might present information to the Senate, through their attorneys.

Ok fine, so the Senate requested permission to extend the FBI investigation, and got it. And the FBI investigated Ford's allegations. And now we're told no no no, they didn't.

My understanding is that yes, they did. They did not investigate the other allegations (Yale party, gang rape) but did officially question Ford's named witnesses.

Are you denying that happened?

I can’t believe you’re arguing that the “investigation” was anything but a sham. Go read up on what it did include and DIDN’T include so you don’t sound so clueless.

Is your contention the FBI did not question the 4 named witnesses?

Ummm...they skipped the two main witnesses. total nonsense.

They already had their testimony. I would imagine that without corroboration from the 4 named witnesses, there was nothing for them to return to Ford and Kavanaugh regarding. You clearly think there is some reason the FBI should have returned to Ford and Kavanaugh.

Is your contention that the 4 named witnesses, who were interviewed by the FBI, provided information that the FBI should have followed up on and didn't?

Again, you’re being ridiculous. Go educate yourself instead of posting rhetorical questions.

They aren't rhetorical.

I am of the opinion you have no idea what an FBI background investigation is, and I'm trying to figure out where you think it went wrong.

That you can't articulate where you think it went wrong reinforces my opinion.

“Background investigation”? It was more than that. But you know that and are being ingenuous.

It was a background investigation. You may have wanted it to be more than that, but it wasn't. The FBI was tasked with compiling a background investigation on Kavanaugh.

Everyone, except those who wanted to push him through no matter what, wanted a full investigation. Not that sham.

What sort of investigation do you think the FBI does on Supreme Court Justice nominees, other than standard background investigations??

If Ford wants a criminal investigation, my understanding is the County police said they would do one, even if her allegation would typically be beyond the statute of limitations.

If the other women offering accusations want criminal investigations, they can make reports to the police. I don't know if police have commented on whether or not they would investigate the other two allegations, but I suspect they might. Or it would be nice to be told that they refused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was nothing more to investigate regarding Ford.

Bullshit.

My representatives who saw the report said the investigation was a sham. I’m going to have to take their word since it was never made public.

I believe that by "sham" they meant "standard background investigation, which is precisely what we knew the FBI had the authority to do in this situation." But "sham" plays better to the crowds.

Why do you think no one's (apparently) making police reports, reports to the people who may actually be empowered to conduct a criminal investigation. That is what you want, right? A criminal investigation, not a background investigation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand why Ford did not report this to the Montgomery County police when she decided to come forward. Certainly a police department would do more investigation than a FBI background check.

What could the police do at this late stage? More than three decades have passed, and not only does she not know where and when this happened, the witnesses she said could collaborate her story said they have no recollection of it. Even her best friend, whom she said was at the gathering, said she never even met Kavanaugh.

The police have the ability and authority to conduct a criminal investigation. The FBI had the ability and authority to do a background check. The people who feel the FBI investigation was lacking, would like to see something akin to a police investigation. But, I would hope that everyone would have the courtesy to respect Ford's wishes, and if she declines to make a police report, then people are going to have to accept that a background investigation is what there was authority to conduct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So 16:25 and 16:36. Both of you are perfectly fine with people telling stories years later that trash another human being knowing they have no credible sources to verify their information? So if I see someone shoplifting and know who it is, I can spill my guts 35 years later without having any proof just to make sure that person's reputation was smeared? I actually did observe someone shoplifting as a child and can vaguely pinpoint where it was and what time of year and I know who did it. Do I know the shop? Nope. Did I say anything at the time? Only to a friend who I haven't contacted. Maybe I should look up the shoplifter and let everyone they currently work with know of this observation from so many years ago just to be sure they don't get elected to a high position.

Does this make any sense for me to do? Does this action leave me blameless? Am I not just as guilty for bringing up this issue from the past that I have no proof of?

Not either of those posters, but sure, go ahead and take a polygraph. Have you mentioned it to anyone in prior years? That would help corroborate your case. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor, though. Not quite as serious as sexual assault. Unless you're a republican, apparently. To them, sexual assault seems to be no big deal, and the victim is the one who gets punished.

Apparently for a liberal it's no big deal either because all that matters according to 16:36 is that the victim is ready to report it. all that is needed of us is to believe the victim. No proof necessary or need for any witnesses. Just a feeling like the accusation is correct like reading a Huffpost or Breibart article without fact checking it. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a belief for 16:36 which is all the more ironic since we're talking about the hiring of a judge. Also ironic because there are people saying well if only the FBI investigated further. What further investigation do you think they could do regarding an allegation from 35 years ago that the victim can't even remember basic event details? From the beginning it was obvious that the key people weren't supporting the allegation and there was nothing the FBI could do further.

Do you really think a polygraph test is enough to convict someone, particularly one done by a private hire? Kavanaugh is still innocent until proven guilty and it was known from the beginning that Ford didn't have anyone else to corroborate her story. She knew from the beginning what the result would be, so then what is the motive other than to defame him? I disagree that I'm just a victim when I decide to come forward with an allegation with no proof. I then become an accuser and an alleged victim and should be dealt with accordingly. She deserves the same.

I am 16:36, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said the victim's story alone should be dispositive for a criminal conviction (which is where innocent until proven guilty comes into lay), I just said that as long as a victim is telling the truth, I'm okay with them sharing their story whenever they choose rather than being barred by some social, rather than legal, statute of limitations. I have zero sympathy for a perpetrator who thought they were getting away with something because the victim didn't report it right away, only to suffer some reputational harm but no criminal culpability when their misdeeds are revealed years later. Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth.

Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth

This statement is basically saying your view your own opinion or feeling as more important in determining the truth than facts and innocent until proven guilty.

I really haven't put much stock into whether Kavanaugh is telling the truth about the event or even if Ford is. In my eyes the accusation was for Dr. Ford to prove, not for him to defend or for me to believe her based on her words. I just don't see that Ford has given evidence to her claim. That makes Kavanaugh innocent in my eyes because I believe innocent until proven guilty. It's about facts not belief.

So what I’m hearing is that you think no victim of a crime should speak up unless they have incontrovertible proof at the time they make the initial accusation of the accused’s guilt. Because even if the accused is, in fact, guilty, it’s not fair to tarnish the accused’s reputation with an allegation that you may not be able to definitively prove in court, regardless of whether it’s true.

And in that case, maybe you shouldn’t accuse Ford of being a criminal who conspired with Democrats to make up a malicious allegation to slander Kavanaugh, because you can’t definitively prove that either so clearly you’re just trying to trnish her reputation, which is something you admit is wrong.

Well I am speaking anonymously and offering up an opinion on what her motive was. What would be her crime then? Perjury? Either way, my logical opinion on an issue is different than putting forth an accusation that I say is a fact. If Kavanaugh wants to accuse her of defamation, he has every right to and then it will be on him to prove that she tried to do just that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand why Ford did not report this to the Montgomery County police when she decided to come forward. Certainly a police department would do more investigation than a FBI background check.

What could the police do at this late stage? More than three decades have passed, and not only does she not know where and when this happened, the witnesses she said could collaborate her story said they have no recollection of it. Even her best friend, whom she said was at the gathering, said she never even met Kavanaugh.

Mark Judge knew Kavanaugh and was there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand why Ford did not report this to the Montgomery County police when she decided to come forward. Certainly a police department would do more investigation than a FBI background check.

Because she didn't want him to go to jail? She just didn't want him to be a supreme court justice? But ya: maybe he should go to jail (not).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he would have been confirmed even if there was evidence to prove the truth of the story.

Let's say that he did what she said...do you disqualify a person for an offense that was 35 years ago when they were a teen when as an adult there isn't a single compliant by any woman he has worked with or known socially but in fact gets high compliments from?

If he lies about it when confronted to try to cover it up, yep.

I agree but therein lies the problem, there is no way of knowing at this point and in this particular situation. Many are reacting simply from their own experience and/or political or social bias. I have shared on here that my wife, who was sexually assaulted years ago doesn't believe her story.

One thing I have been curious about with her therapy, which is a significant linchpin in this, who is the therapist and what was the process of this therapy. If this had been a court of law that would be known now since once it is entered there is an absolute right to discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he would have been confirmed even if there was evidence to prove the truth of the story.

Let's say that he did what she said...do you disqualify a person for an offense that was 35 years ago when they were a teen when as an adult there isn't a single compliant by any woman he has worked with or known socially but in fact gets high compliments from?

The women he hired recently, do you think they sold themselves? How could they possibly work for him? Why isn't there an outcry against them for working with him?

When this first came out, I said to my husband that no man his age should be disqualified for something he did as a teenager. But then he started to lie. And to me there is nothing more sacred than the truth. the leaders of our great nation should not be liars. Average people may occasionally succumb to lying, but our best and brightest should not (or they are not the best)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he would have been confirmed even if there was evidence to prove the truth of the story.

Let's say that he did what she said...do you disqualify a person for an offense that was 35 years ago when they were a teen when as an adult there isn't a single compliant by any woman he has worked with or known socially but in fact gets high compliments from?

If he lies about it when confronted to try to cover it up, yep.

I agree but therein lies the problem, there is no way of knowing at this point and in this particular situation. Many are reacting simply from their own experience and/or political or social bias. I have shared on here that my wife, who was sexually assaulted years ago doesn't believe her story.

One thing I have been curious about with her therapy, which is a significant linchpin in this, who is the therapist and what was the process of this therapy. If this had been a court of law that would be known now since once it is entered there is an absolute right to discovery.

He lied about his drinking. He clearly lied about his drinking. And he lied about Renata. That disqualifies him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So 16:25 and 16:36. Both of you are perfectly fine with people telling stories years later that trash another human being knowing they have no credible sources to verify their information? So if I see someone shoplifting and know who it is, I can spill my guts 35 years later without having any proof just to make sure that person's reputation was smeared? I actually did observe someone shoplifting as a child and can vaguely pinpoint where it was and what time of year and I know who did it. Do I know the shop? Nope. Did I say anything at the time? Only to a friend who I haven't contacted. Maybe I should look up the shoplifter and let everyone they currently work with know of this observation from so many years ago just to be sure they don't get elected to a high position.

Does this make any sense for me to do? Does this action leave me blameless? Am I not just as guilty for bringing up this issue from the past that I have no proof of?

Not either of those posters, but sure, go ahead and take a polygraph. Have you mentioned it to anyone in prior years? That would help corroborate your case. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor, though. Not quite as serious as sexual assault. Unless you're a republican, apparently. To them, sexual assault seems to be no big deal, and the victim is the one who gets punished.

Apparently for a liberal it's no big deal either because all that matters according to 16:36 is that the victim is ready to report it. all that is needed of us is to believe the victim. No proof necessary or need for any witnesses. Just a feeling like the accusation is correct like reading a Huffpost or Breibart article without fact checking it. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a belief for 16:36 which is all the more ironic since we're talking about the hiring of a judge. Also ironic because there are people saying well if only the FBI investigated further. What further investigation do you think they could do regarding an allegation from 35 years ago that the victim can't even remember basic event details? From the beginning it was obvious that the key people weren't supporting the allegation and there was nothing the FBI could do further.

Do you really think a polygraph test is enough to convict someone, particularly one done by a private hire? Kavanaugh is still innocent until proven guilty and it was known from the beginning that Ford didn't have anyone else to corroborate her story. She knew from the beginning what the result would be, so then what is the motive other than to defame him? I disagree that I'm just a victim when I decide to come forward with an allegation with no proof. I then become an accuser and an alleged victim and should be dealt with accordingly. She deserves the same.

I am 16:36, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said the victim's story alone should be dispositive for a criminal conviction (which is where innocent until proven guilty comes into lay), I just said that as long as a victim is telling the truth, I'm okay with them sharing their story whenever they choose rather than being barred by some social, rather than legal, statute of limitations. I have zero sympathy for a perpetrator who thought they were getting away with something because the victim didn't report it right away, only to suffer some reputational harm but no criminal culpability when their misdeeds are revealed years later. Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth.

Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth

This statement is basically saying your view your own opinion or feeling as more important in determining the truth than facts and innocent until proven guilty.

I really haven't put much stock into whether Kavanaugh is telling the truth about the event or even if Ford is. In my eyes the accusation was for Dr. Ford to prove, not for him to defend or for me to believe her based on her words. I just don't see that Ford has given evidence to her claim. That makes Kavanaugh innocent in my eyes because I believe innocent until proven guilty. It's about facts not belief.

So what I’m hearing is that you think no victim of a crime should speak up unless they have incontrovertible proof at the time they make the initial accusation of the accused’s guilt. Because even if the accused is, in fact, guilty, it’s not fair to tarnish the accused’s reputation with an allegation that you may not be able to definitively prove in court, regardless of whether it’s true.

And in that case, maybe you shouldn’t accuse Ford of being a criminal who conspired with Democrats to make up a malicious allegation to slander Kavanaugh, because you can’t definitively prove that either so clearly you’re just trying to trnish her reputation, which is something you admit is wrong.

Well I am speaking anonymously and offering up an opinion on what her motive was. What would be her crime then? Perjury? Either way, my logical opinion on an issue is different than putting forth an accusation that I say is a fact. If Kavanaugh wants to accuse her of defamation, he has every right to and then it will be on him to prove that she tried to do just that.

Funnny thing about speaking anonymously, it means you can say whatever you want with virtually no risk of repercussions. When her allegations became public, Dr. Ford put her name to them. She sat in a hearing and answered hard questions about them. She was willing to be held accountable for her allegations, even though she didn’t have to. To me that says something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand why Ford did not report this to the Montgomery County police when she decided to come forward. Certainly a police department would do more investigation than a FBI background check.

Because she didn't want him to go to jail? She just didn't want him to be a supreme court justice? But ya: maybe he should go to jail (not).

Because she was 15 and scared?

Because she was at a gathering she wasn't supposed to be at?

Because she was embarrassed and ashamed?

BECAUSE SHE THOUGHT NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE HER?

[Anonymous]

K lied about his yearbook. But he didn’t lie about drinking. He said he had too much to drink at times. He said he regretted some of the things he has done. I dont what else you wanted him to say about drinking. The fame seekers coming out of the woodwork to say he drank a lot more than 30 years ago is embarrassing.