Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I really can't believe more people aren't talking about the completely fake story of mistaken identity cooked up by Whelan and Kavanaugh? you know, the one that got Whelan ousted from his job?
The actual tweets are in this: https://mashable.com/article/ed-whelan-uses-zillow-kavanaugh-innocence-conspiracy-theory/#JnXFLE8LWaqU https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/21/17886430/brett-kavanaugh-news-ed-whelan-trump Fumbled coverup + plus Kavanaugh's refusal to call for a FBI investigation at any point = guilty of something I wouldn't be surprised if he is guilty of the stuff in all three accusations and more. |
Anonymous
The FBI made their stance clear. They had already investigated Kavanaugh long before the hearings. There was nothing new to find. The director of the FBI said that the only point of further investigations would be to trip both of them up on claims of perjury. Given that it's pretty clear that both of them did technically like (Kavanaugh definitely was a heavy drinker, Ford definitely changed her story several times) those would be the only findings from the FBI. Of the two, Ford had a lot more to lose, with people refusing to corroborate her allegation, an ex boyfriend of six years releasing a letter saying Ford's claims of being afraid to fly or needing a place with two doors were bullshit because she flew all the time and lived in a studio apartment with only one door, for five years. Or the discrepancy between the therapist' notes and what Ford later told the Senate. Those are the things the FBI would be investigating Ford for. And she'd be prosecuted for having lied to the FBI and the Senate. It would have never been about what happened in the summer of 1982. |
Anonymous
That person Whelan identified is Chris, also known as "Squi." He was going out with Dr. Ford at about that time. She certainly could tell the difference between him and Kavanaugh. Whelan was in on the sessions with Kavanaugh at the White House the week before Dr. Ford's testimony. I think Kavanuagh helped cook up the scheme and Squi was paid off. He had signed a letter of support for Kavanaugh. His yearbook puts him in the 100 keg club and many of the same activities. If he were identified by Whelan without his consent he'd be scrambling to sue right now. I can't believe being called a possible rapist doesn't affect his teaching career. |
Anonymous
I don't really see the difference between him and Ford and I don't see how this affects Kavenaugh at all. Both Whelan and Ford are making accusations without any proof. |
Anonymous
| I mean how can people jump on Whelan for smearing a citizen's name without proof but not Ford for doing the same thing? Note how the article calls telling Ford that she's lying is "ugly business" as if it's not possible in this day and age to even say or think this after hearing testimony. |
Anonymous
Seriously, what did you expect the FBI to find out if there had been a "better" investigation? The supposed event happened decades ago and no one can corroborate the story. Unless there is proof all these people were even at a summer party at the same time at any time in the early 80s there just isn't anything else to unearth. There at least needs to be an actual event identified that the FBI can say happened before they would investigate further the details of that night. |
Anonymous
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. She wasn't anonymous to everyone before her allegations were made public. Only to the public. She put her name to them from the beginning to her reps and didn't offer an opinion. She made an accusation. She never said I think it might have been Brett Kavanaugh who did this to me or that likely he would do something like this. She insisted it was the truth and when you insist you have to have evidence. No, you actually don’t. That’s what an investigation is for. Going back to the previous post, do you expect every victim of any crime to have incontrovertible proof from the moment of their first allegation? I think they should have some proof and at least come across as if their allegations have some evidence behind them. She had zero proof. Zero. That doesn’t mean her allegation is untrue. Again innocent until proven guilty. It is an unproven allegation. Therefore there's nothing to accuse Kavanaugh of at this point in time related to the accusation. That she doesn’t have definitive proof does not mean there is not accusation to be made, nor does it means the accusation is untrue. Leaving aside this case specifically for a moment, if in a hypothetical case a crime did occur, why are you so opposed to the victim speaking up about that crime unless they can prove it in gent own without an investigation? What is your hostility to crime victims and your investment in protecting perpetrators? I don't think that. But she didn't want a criminal investigation. If there would have been a criminal investigation than the decision guilty or not guilty would have ceased to be about her words and it would have been all about the results of the investigation and criminal hearings. That didn't happen per her own wishes. So then if we're just supposed to go on her word, there should be enough evidence she can provide if she wants me or any senators to believe her. Otherwise I have no other determination to make other than this was a decision to defame someone with just words. Why do you believe her without any evidence to prove her case? Anyone? When you learn the definition of “evidence,” then we’ll talk. Evidence = Facts and information indicating whether a claim is true or valid. I'm not mistaking what the term evidence means. Ford provided no evidence to back up her claim and there was no indication that back better investigation would provide evidence either. Stop deflecting. If you think she did, just come out and state what that evidence is. You've provided no evidence in support of her accusation. |
Anonymous
| Back should have been a |
Anonymous
“Guilty of something?” Wow! I hope you don’t work anywhere near the legal profession. It’s scary that people actually believe stuff like that. |
Anonymous
I’m sorry too. And not to deflect from how awful guys can be, but damn, some women (like your friend) are downright evil and conniving too. I know someone who was assaulted, and some of her friends acted in a similar way. Some people truly suck. I hope that you are healing PP. |
Anonymous
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/opinion/kavanaugh-justice-princeton-women.html
The trolls and Beers for Brett stains here will never understand another POV. |
Anonymous
Wait? Are you saying liberals understand another POV? Why don't you go to a non-liberal forum and participate in a debate rather than hang out here in your echo chamber? |
Anonymous
And yet you don’t seem nearly so outraged about Whelan’s accusations as Ford’s. Hmm, I wonder why... |
Anonymous
Is there a liberal echo chamber here? I can’t hear it over all the ring-wing screaming. Oh, well. |
Anonymous
No evidence Dr Ford came forward out of political motivation. Ditto for Debbie Ramriez |