Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whelan's insane coverup put the nail in the coffin for me.
That and the refusal for Kavanaugh to call for an investigation to clear his name.


He will always be the SCJ who "kavanaughs" women.

There is no clearing your name. I can't prove I didn't assault someone 35 years ago. I can call for all the investigations in the world and I'm not going to be able to prove a thing. If someone accuses me, they are more than welcome to investigate.

Have you called for an investigation to prove that you didn't sexually assault some one when you were 17? If you haven't, you're guilty.

If you're in a position to do so, but instead rush to be sworn in hours after a confirmation vote, it shows that you're scared of something. Obviously not scared of unhappy Democrats. Scared of something else.

There was no rush.
Having people hold things to the last hour, and then giving them a time limit to resolve them, is not rushing.
If you tell your child 2 hours before they have to leave in the morning, but they wait until 5 minutes before to get their stuff together? You didn't rush them.

Kavanaugh's nomination was orderly, and they even allowed for extra time to handle the last minute accusation.

And once he was confirmed, crickets.
No one following up on the apparently obvious perjury.
No one filing police reports.
All smoke.

THIS. All of their underhanded tactics failed. And everyone knows it.

We also saw Kavanaugh's very human reaction to having been accused of something he did not do.

FIFY.

He was barely confirmed the first time. Too hyperpartisan.

And now?

Unfortunately, the Democrats displayed with Gorsuch that there wasn't going to be any crossing the aisle, so no reason to make more moderate picks.

There are good reasons to call for bipartisan cooperation, and I think this is a perfect example. While we can't know if Trump would have chosen Kavanaugh if Gorsuch had gotten confirmed by 75 votes or so, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that when he realized he only got 3 to crossover for Gorsuch, there was no need to try to court Democratic approval at all.

We all lost out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whelan's insane coverup put the nail in the coffin for me.
That and the refusal for Kavanaugh to call for an investigation to clear his name.


He will always be the SCJ who "kavanaughs" women.

There is no clearing your name. I can't prove I didn't assault someone 35 years ago. I can call for all the investigations in the world and I'm not going to be able to prove a thing. If someone accuses me, they are more than welcome to investigate.

Have you called for an investigation to prove that you didn't sexually assault some one when you were 17? If you haven't, you're guilty.

If you're in a position to do so, but instead rush to be sworn in hours after a confirmation vote, it shows that you're scared of something. Obviously not scared of unhappy Democrats. Scared of something else.

There was no rush.
Having people hold things to the last hour, and then giving them a time limit to resolve them, is not rushing.
If you tell your child 2 hours before they have to leave in the morning, but they wait until 5 minutes before to get their stuff together? You didn't rush them.

Kavanaugh's nomination was orderly, and they even allowed for extra time to handle the last minute accusation.

And once he was confirmed, crickets.
No one following up on the apparently obvious perjury.
No one filing police reports.
All smoke.

Gorsuch was sworn in 3 days after the confirmation vote. Kavanaugh was sworn in 3 hours after the confirmation vote. No rush?

Yep.
Kavanaugh is a slimeball. He did a lot of bad things. He did a lot of bad things trying to get to be a supreme court justice too. I think he will be impeached and removed, eventually.

There are no crickets. Congress has to have him investigated for perjury since it was at a congressional hearing that he lied. That won't happen until Democrats are the majority.

There will be no police reports until a more recent victim comes forward, and who knows if there even is one who would go to the police? If they exist, they would have seen what happened to the earlier victims.

Saying that it was all smoke is ridiculous. If it was all smoke, why no FBI investigation? The "can't prove a negative" thing is ridiculous. They would have looked at the therapist notes from Dr. Ford, they would have interviewed Ramirez's list of people she supplied, they would have interviewed Swetnick and her witnesses, and they would have interviewed Kavanaugh.

He is guilty guilty guilty.

Crickets. No one reporting a crime to the police. No one pushing for perjury charges.

The FBI background investigation was extended, and nothing damning found.

I thought the FBI could investigate for perjury charges. Yeah, here https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1742-perjury-cases-investigative-responsibility .

Has anyone requested the FBI investigated? Leahy seems to think he has a slam dunk case on twitter. I haven't seen where he's requested an investigation. Even if it gets shut down by the majority party, surely he'd want to at least try. Wouldn't he?

If Kavanaugh's the criminal you want him to be, someone would be pushing for these things. No one is.

Justice Roberts is...

The articles I've read indicates those are complaints that cannot take him off the bench.

But sexual assault? Gang rape?
Actual perjury?

Those things could get him impeached. No one's following up on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whelan's insane coverup put the nail in the coffin for me.
That and the refusal for Kavanaugh to call for an investigation to clear his name.


He will always be the SCJ who "kavanaughs" women.

There is no clearing your name. I can't prove I didn't assault someone 35 years ago. I can call for all the investigations in the world and I'm not going to be able to prove a thing. If someone accuses me, they are more than welcome to investigate.

Have you called for an investigation to prove that you didn't sexually assault some one when you were 17? If you haven't, you're guilty.

He had the ability back in JULY, before anything was public knowledge. But he didn't. Instead he was busy tampering with witnesses about the assault on Ramirez.

You mean Feinstein and the Democrats had the ability, back in JULY, to have all of this investigated without dragging anyone's name publicly through the mud. It could all have been accomplished very quietly. But it wasn't. This could all have been over long ago. But that doesn't seem to faze you.

+1 Because an earlier investigation wouldn't have had the same effect as an accusation made public at the last minute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whelan's insane coverup put the nail in the coffin for me.
That and the refusal for Kavanaugh to call for an investigation to clear his name.


He will always be the SCJ who "kavanaughs" women.

There is no clearing your name. I can't prove I didn't assault someone 35 years ago. I can call for all the investigations in the world and I'm not going to be able to prove a thing. If someone accuses me, they are more than welcome to investigate.

Have you called for an investigation to prove that you didn't sexually assault some one when you were 17? If you haven't, you're guilty.

If you're in a position to do so, but instead rush to be sworn in hours after a confirmation vote, it shows that you're scared of something. Obviously not scared of unhappy Democrats. Scared of something else.

There was no rush.
Having people hold things to the last hour, and then giving them a time limit to resolve them, is not rushing.
If you tell your child 2 hours before they have to leave in the morning, but they wait until 5 minutes before to get their stuff together? You didn't rush them.

Kavanaugh's nomination was orderly, and they even allowed for extra time to handle the last minute accusation.

And once he was confirmed, crickets.
No one following up on the apparently obvious perjury.
No one filing police reports.
All smoke.

Gorsuch was sworn in 3 days after the confirmation vote. Kavanaugh was sworn in 3 hours after the confirmation vote. No rush?

Yep.
Kavanaugh is a slimeball. He did a lot of bad things. He did a lot of bad things trying to get to be a supreme court justice too. I think he will be impeached and removed, eventually.

There are no crickets. Congress has to have him investigated for perjury since it was at a congressional hearing that he lied. That won't happen until Democrats are the majority.

There will be no police reports until a more recent victim comes forward, and who knows if there even is one who would go to the police? If they exist, they would have seen what happened to the earlier victims.

Saying that it was all smoke is ridiculous. If it was all smoke, why no FBI investigation? The "can't prove a negative" thing is ridiculous. They would have looked at the therapist notes from Dr. Ford, they would have interviewed Ramirez's list of people she supplied, they would have interviewed Swetnick and her witnesses, and they would have interviewed Kavanaugh.

He is guilty guilty guilty.

Crickets. No one reporting a crime to the police. No one pushing for perjury charges.

The FBI background investigation was extended, and nothing damning found.

I thought the FBI could investigate for perjury charges. Yeah, here https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1742-perjury-cases-investigative-responsibility .

Has anyone requested the FBI investigated? Leahy seems to think he has a slam dunk case on twitter. I haven't seen where he's requested an investigation. Even if it gets shut down by the majority party, surely he'd want to at least try. Wouldn't he?

If Kavanaugh's the criminal you want him to be, someone would be pushing for these things. No one is.

Justice Roberts is...

The articles I've read indicates those are complaints that cannot take him off the bench.

But sexual assault? Gang rape?
Actual perjury?

Those things could get him impeached. No one's following up on them.

He could shoot someone on Fifth Ave and wouldn't be impeached by today's Congress. These are all political issues, not criminal ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whelan's insane coverup put the nail in the coffin for me.
That and the refusal for Kavanaugh to call for an investigation to clear his name.


He will always be the SCJ who "kavanaughs" women.

There is no clearing your name. I can't prove I didn't assault someone 35 years ago. I can call for all the investigations in the world and I'm not going to be able to prove a thing. If someone accuses me, they are more than welcome to investigate.

Have you called for an investigation to prove that you didn't sexually assault some one when you were 17? If you haven't, you're guilty.

If you're in a position to do so, but instead rush to be sworn in hours after a confirmation vote, it shows that you're scared of something. Obviously not scared of unhappy Democrats. Scared of something else.

There was no rush.
Having people hold things to the last hour, and then giving them a time limit to resolve them, is not rushing.
If you tell your child 2 hours before they have to leave in the morning, but they wait until 5 minutes before to get their stuff together? You didn't rush them.

Kavanaugh's nomination was orderly, and they even allowed for extra time to handle the last minute accusation.

And once he was confirmed, crickets.
No one following up on the apparently obvious perjury.
No one filing police reports.
All smoke.

Gorsuch was sworn in 3 days after the confirmation vote. Kavanaugh was sworn in 3 hours after the confirmation vote. No rush?

Yep.
Kavanaugh is a slimeball. He did a lot of bad things. He did a lot of bad things trying to get to be a supreme court justice too. I think he will be impeached and removed, eventually.

There are no crickets. Congress has to have him investigated for perjury since it was at a congressional hearing that he lied. That won't happen until Democrats are the majority.

There will be no police reports until a more recent victim comes forward, and who knows if there even is one who would go to the police? If they exist, they would have seen what happened to the earlier victims.

Saying that it was all smoke is ridiculous. If it was all smoke, why no FBI investigation? The "can't prove a negative" thing is ridiculous. They would have looked at the therapist notes from Dr. Ford, they would have interviewed Ramirez's list of people she supplied, they would have interviewed Swetnick and her witnesses, and they would have interviewed Kavanaugh.

He is guilty guilty guilty.

Crickets. No one reporting a crime to the police. No one pushing for perjury charges.

The FBI background investigation was extended, and nothing damning found.

I thought the FBI could investigate for perjury charges. Yeah, here https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1742-perjury-cases-investigative-responsibility .

Has anyone requested the FBI investigated? Leahy seems to think he has a slam dunk case on twitter. I haven't seen where he's requested an investigation. Even if it gets shut down by the majority party, surely he'd want to at least try. Wouldn't he?

If Kavanaugh's the criminal you want him to be, someone would be pushing for these things. No one is.

Justice Roberts is...

The articles I've read indicates those are complaints that cannot take him off the bench.

But sexual assault? Gang rape?
Actual perjury?

Those things could get him impeached. No one's following up on them.

He could shoot someone on Fifth Ave and wouldn't be impeached by today's Congress. These are all political issues, not criminal ones.

If he shot someone on Fifth Ave, he could go to jail, which would effectively remove him from the bench.
Sexual assault and gang rape are crimes - not political issues.

I cannot believe I had to type that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

LOL,when questioned what she was doing at HS parties at the age of 20/21 she said that the people at these parties were "mixed age" with people anywhere between "15/16 to 25...maybe more". 15 year old Catholic prep-school kids hanging out with 25+ year old adults from Gaithersburg on 10 different instances? Right....

I time stamped the point in the interview if anybody wants a good laugh.

https://youtu.be/hq_aFCg6bKY?t=150

This is what certain people think should end a man's career? Sad that some people take her seriously. In the end though she probably helped secure Kavanaugh's confirmation. Susan Collins specifically cited Swetnick when she stated that the presumption of innocence needs to be maintained and announced she would vote yes on the confirmation.

I agree. And I applaud Collins for having the sense to know when a smear campaign is afoot, as opposed to credible allegations.

Collins just accepted a six figure ad buy on her behalf from Judicial Action Network as a reward for her yes vote. You really want to talk about Susan “Gimme my Money” Collins?

Good for her! So she's supposed to just do nothing to help her own campaign, even as liberals raised money for her opponent if she voted no on the confirmation? Which she did - glad she didn't let the blackmailing liberals take control of her vote.

What do you have to say about her opponent who accepted all those donations against Collins' no vote? Nothing? Surprise, surprise.

Collins is scum.

only in your world

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ford was the victim. She has the right to say who attacked her. Whelan was not there, he was not the victim, he was the heavy hitter the GOP brought in to make up an alternative story line.

No, she is not a victim. It was never determined to be a fact, only an accusation. If there was a way to prove it one way or the other then we could determine who the victim is.

She was the victim.

Your opinion is noted however "it was never determined to be a fact, only an accusation.'' Absolutely NEVER PROVEN to be a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whelan's insane coverup put the nail in the coffin for me.
That and the refusal for Kavanaugh to call for an investigation to clear his name.


He will always be the SCJ who "kavanaughs" women.

There is no clearing your name. I can't prove I didn't assault someone 35 years ago. I can call for all the investigations in the world and I'm not going to be able to prove a thing. If someone accuses me, they are more than welcome to investigate.

Have you called for an investigation to prove that you didn't sexually assault some one when you were 17? If you haven't, you're guilty.

He had the ability back in JULY, before anything was public knowledge. But he didn't. Instead he was busy tampering with witnesses about the assault on Ramirez.

You mean Feinstein and the Democrats had the ability, back in JULY, to have all of this investigated without dragging anyone's name publicly through the mud. It could all have been accomplished very quietly. But it wasn't. This could all have been over long ago. But that doesn't seem to faze you.

Only the white house could call this kind of investigation, weren't you paying attention?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whelan's insane coverup put the nail in the coffin for me.
That and the refusal for Kavanaugh to call for an investigation to clear his name.


He will always be the SCJ who "kavanaughs" women.

There is no clearing your name. I can't prove I didn't assault someone 35 years ago. I can call for all the investigations in the world and I'm not going to be able to prove a thing. If someone accuses me, they are more than welcome to investigate.

Have you called for an investigation to prove that you didn't sexually assault some one when you were 17? If you haven't, you're guilty.

He had the ability back in JULY, before anything was public knowledge. But he didn't. Instead he was busy tampering with witnesses about the assault on Ramirez.

You mean Feinstein and the Democrats had the ability, back in JULY, to have all of this investigated without dragging anyone's name publicly through the mud. It could all have been accomplished very quietly. But it wasn't. This could all have been over long ago. But that doesn't seem to faze you.

Only the white house could call this kind of investigation, weren't you paying attention?

The whitehouse didn't know about it. Feinstein had the information and was the one deciding when, and how, to violate Ford's confidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whelan's insane coverup put the nail in the coffin for me.
That and the refusal for Kavanaugh to call for an investigation to clear his name.


He will always be the SCJ who "kavanaughs" women.

There is no clearing your name. I can't prove I didn't assault someone 35 years ago. I can call for all the investigations in the world and I'm not going to be able to prove a thing. If someone accuses me, they are more than welcome to investigate.

Have you called for an investigation to prove that you didn't sexually assault some one when you were 17? If you haven't, you're guilty.

If you're in a position to do so, but instead rush to be sworn in hours after a confirmation vote, it shows that you're scared of something. Obviously not scared of unhappy Democrats. Scared of something else.

There was no rush.
Having people hold things to the last hour, and then giving them a time limit to resolve them, is not rushing.
If you tell your child 2 hours before they have to leave in the morning, but they wait until 5 minutes before to get their stuff together? You didn't rush them.

Kavanaugh's nomination was orderly, and they even allowed for extra time to handle the last minute accusation.

And once he was confirmed, crickets.
No one following up on the apparently obvious perjury.
No one filing police reports.
All smoke.

THIS. All of their underhanded tactics failed. And everyone knows it.

We also saw Kavanaugh's honor. Or rather, the lack.

No one came out of this smelling like a rose.

But that's irrelevant to my mind.

My issue is if there were crimes, why is no one reporting?

I find that very troubling. As a woman, as a mother of daughters, I want them to be believed if they make accusations. I also want them to follow up with the authorities. And I want other people to follow up with authorities. I find it abhorrent that someone is comfortable enough to publicly accuse someone of gang rape but is then not willing to press charges. I understand why some women don't want to report, and I have sympathy for them. But if you're willing to go public, especially about gang rape, for goodness sakes report the crime!

Ford's and Ramirez's accusations are well beyond the the statute of limitations that were in effect at the times of the crimes. Swetnick did not accuse him of gang rape, she does not know if he was one of her assailants. The value of her sworn statement is that it underscores what his behavior was like at the time of Dr. Ford's assault.

The idea that it is ONLY okay to come forward if you are willing to press charges WHEN THE PERSON IS NOMINATED TO THE SUPREME COURT is absurd. There is (or was) a much higher standard for acceptable past behavior for supreme court nominees. There are many other people who could have been nominated who did not possibly assault someone.

They were right to come forward, and they do not have to go through pressing assault charges for crimes (where it isn't even possible to press charges now!) to be believable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whelan's insane coverup put the nail in the coffin for me.
That and the refusal for Kavanaugh to call for an investigation to clear his name.


He will always be the SCJ who "kavanaughs" women.

There is no clearing your name. I can't prove I didn't assault someone 35 years ago. I can call for all the investigations in the world and I'm not going to be able to prove a thing. If someone accuses me, they are more than welcome to investigate.

Have you called for an investigation to prove that you didn't sexually assault some one when you were 17? If you haven't, you're guilty.

He had the ability back in JULY, before anything was public knowledge. But he didn't. Instead he was busy tampering with witnesses about the assault on Ramirez.

You mean Feinstein and the Democrats had the ability, back in JULY, to have all of this investigated without dragging anyone's name publicly through the mud. It could all have been accomplished very quietly. But it wasn't. This could all have been over long ago. But that doesn't seem to faze you.

Only the white house could call this kind of investigation, weren't you paying attention?

The whitehouse didn't know about it. Feinstein had the information and was the one deciding when, and how, to violate Ford's confidence.

This is not true. The white house and Kavanaugh knew about Ramirez back in July. And then they knew about Ford's accusation before it came out as well. Remember, ONCE AGAIN, Whelan's "doppleganger" theory that he cooked up with the white house and brett kavanaugh?

[Anonymous]

He was so clearly lying at the hearing. It is insulting that they didn't pull him right away. He tried to hide it as outrage but it hit the wrong notes. He just looked like a lying ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whelan's insane coverup put the nail in the coffin for me.
That and the refusal for Kavanaugh to call for an investigation to clear his name.


He will always be the SCJ who "kavanaughs" women.

There is no clearing your name. I can't prove I didn't assault someone 35 years ago. I can call for all the investigations in the world and I'm not going to be able to prove a thing. If someone accuses me, they are more than welcome to investigate.

Have you called for an investigation to prove that you didn't sexually assault some one when you were 17? If you haven't, you're guilty.

He had the ability back in JULY, before anything was public knowledge. But he didn't. Instead he was busy tampering with witnesses about the assault on Ramirez.

You mean Feinstein and the Democrats had the ability, back in JULY, to have all of this investigated without dragging anyone's name publicly through the mud. It could all have been accomplished very quietly. But it wasn't. This could all have been over long ago. But that doesn't seem to faze you.

Only the white house could call this kind of investigation, weren't you paying attention?

The whitehouse didn't know about it. Feinstein had the information and was the one deciding when, and how, to violate Ford's confidence.

This is not true. The white house and Kavanaugh knew about Ramirez back in July. And then they knew about Ford's accusation before it came out as well. Remember, ONCE AGAIN, Whelan's "doppleganger" theory that he cooked up with the white house and brett kavanaugh?

There was a WaPo story that Whelan went on Ford's Linked In hours before Wapo broke the story on Sunday, September 16. But her name had been leaked well before that. A BuzzFeed reporter showed up at one of her classes on Friday and another journalist (maybe more) showed up at her house on Saturday.

Whelan did not have special knowledge other reporters didn't have. And it looks like he actually was behind the curve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whelan's insane coverup put the nail in the coffin for me.
That and the refusal for Kavanaugh to call for an investigation to clear his name.


He will always be the SCJ who "kavanaughs" women.

There is no clearing your name. I can't prove I didn't assault someone 35 years ago. I can call for all the investigations in the world and I'm not going to be able to prove a thing. If someone accuses me, they are more than welcome to investigate.

Have you called for an investigation to prove that you didn't sexually assault some one when you were 17? If you haven't, you're guilty.

If you're in a position to do so, but instead rush to be sworn in hours after a confirmation vote, it shows that you're scared of something. Obviously not scared of unhappy Democrats. Scared of something else.

There was no rush.
Having people hold things to the last hour, and then giving them a time limit to resolve them, is not rushing.
If you tell your child 2 hours before they have to leave in the morning, but they wait until 5 minutes before to get their stuff together? You didn't rush them.

Kavanaugh's nomination was orderly, and they even allowed for extra time to handle the last minute accusation.

And once he was confirmed, crickets.
No one following up on the apparently obvious perjury.
No one filing police reports.
All smoke.

THIS. All of their underhanded tactics failed. And everyone knows it.

We also saw Kavanaugh's honor. Or rather, the lack.

No one came out of this smelling like a rose.

But that's irrelevant to my mind.

My issue is if there were crimes, why is no one reporting?

I find that very troubling. As a woman, as a mother of daughters, I want them to be believed if they make accusations. I also want them to follow up with the authorities. And I want other people to follow up with authorities. I find it abhorrent that someone is comfortable enough to publicly accuse someone of gang rape but is then not willing to press charges. I understand why some women don't want to report, and I have sympathy for them. But if you're willing to go public, especially about gang rape, for goodness sakes report the crime!

Ford's and Ramirez's accusations are well beyond the the statute of limitations that were in effect at the times of the crimes. Swetnick did not accuse him of gang rape, she does not know if he was one of her assailants. The value of her sworn statement is that it underscores what his behavior was like at the time of Dr. Ford's assault.

The idea that it is ONLY okay to come forward if you are willing to press charges WHEN THE PERSON IS NOMINATED TO THE SUPREME COURT is absurd. There is (or was) a much higher standard for acceptable past behavior for supreme court nominees. There are many other people who could have been nominated who did not possibly assault someone.

They were right to come forward, and they do not have to go through pressing assault charges for crimes (where it isn't even possible to press charges now!) to be believable.

Without a criminal investigation, we don't know if the crimes are beyond the statute of limitations. And the Montgomery County Police have stated they will investigate.
If one of the people making allegations would report a crime to the police so that they could conduct a criminal investigation, we might end up with evidence corroborating their claims. No one has been willing to report a crime to the police.

Swetnick accused him of conspiracy to sexually assault women. https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2018/09/26/swetnickstatement.pdf (page 3, lines 1-3) She accused him of conspiracy to facilitate and commit gang rape (page 3, lines 8-12) She accused him of being present at her own rape (page 3, lines 13-14)

If you are willing to come forward, why would you not be willing to report the crime to the police? I mean, people can do whatever they want. but when the women have come forward, none of their named witnesses have backed them up, and they decide not to report a crime to the police when the police have explicitly said they will take the report and investigate the crime?
Suspicious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whelan's insane coverup put the nail in the coffin for me.
That and the refusal for Kavanaugh to call for an investigation to clear his name.


He will always be the SCJ who "kavanaughs" women.

There is no clearing your name. I can't prove I didn't assault someone 35 years ago. I can call for all the investigations in the world and I'm not going to be able to prove a thing. If someone accuses me, they are more than welcome to investigate.

Have you called for an investigation to prove that you didn't sexually assault some one when you were 17? If you haven't, you're guilty.

He had the ability back in JULY, before anything was public knowledge. But he didn't. Instead he was busy tampering with witnesses about the assault on Ramirez.

You mean Feinstein and the Democrats had the ability, back in JULY, to have all of this investigated without dragging anyone's name publicly through the mud. It could all have been accomplished very quietly. But it wasn't. This could all have been over long ago. But that doesn't seem to faze you.

Only the white house could call this kind of investigation, weren't you paying attention?

The whitehouse didn't know about it. Feinstein had the information and was the one deciding when, and how, to violate Ford's confidence.

This is not true. The white house and Kavanaugh knew about Ramirez back in July. And then they knew about Ford's accusation before it came out as well. Remember, ONCE AGAIN, Whelan's "doppleganger" theory that he cooked up with the white house and brett kavanaugh?

Citation please. I've read they knew someone was trying to drum up something re:Ramirez, but they didn't know what.

Definitely a citation about Ford, as to when and where you're claiming they knew about it. https://www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-accusations-timeline-trump-114880 says Sept 14.

Citation re:Whelan's theory being cooked up by the Whitehouse and Kavanaugh.