Reply to new kavanaugh sexual assault allegations

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "new kavanaugh sexual assault allegations"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]Running around a party with your pants down is exposing yourself. People get arrested for this.

Kavanaugh apologists are bottom feeders.
[/quote]

Agree.  Making up stories like this is worse.  Again, there is no corroboration.  This all started with the Ramirez story.  Even she couldn't be sure it was Kavanaugh until after she spent six days talking to her lawyer.  No one else could corroborate it.   The only people who said it happened were not there when it happened.  Kind of weak accusation.

[i]Does it not bother you that false accusations could take you down?[/quote][b]

No, it bothers me that there was not a real investigation with an expansive scope so a bare majority of an institution that represents a minority of the country could push someone onto the Court for a lifetime appointment.  To say nothing of his sniveling, pathetic, partisan rant, shady finances, and apparent perjury, which are all reasons to not confirm him INDEPENDENTLY of the allegations.

Not getting a SCOTUS appointment is not "being taken down."  If he had shown any humility while maintaining his innocence, people might feel a lot differently about him.  But no he is a saint and we are all Clinton apologists.  This will make the GOP lose the Senate ultimately.

[/quote]

He’s been investigated six times. He’s clean. Keep trying to get him though. It’s very entertaining to watch the hysteria blow up in your faces.[/quote]
You’re confusing background checks for investigations.[/quote]

It's called a background INVESTIGATION.   And, the FBI conducted yet another investigation after these bogus allegations were leveled.  So did the Senate Judiciary Committee.  
Result:  NADA
Move on.  [/quote]

Is an investigation complete if the FBI does not contact someone referred by a US senator? Is it complete if they did not return the calls of any of the Yale alum who contacted them about Kavanaugh?[/quote]

Let's look at how this  investigation went.

The FBI contacts Ramirez.  She tells the investigators what she remembers happening, admits that she had been drinking, and confesses that she was not 100% sure it was him but after working with her attorneys  for 6 days,  she is more confident.  She then provides names of people who can  corroborate.  They  contact some of her  so-called  witnesses, but none of them can corroborate her story.  Some were not even at the so-called party.

Should they have continued contacting, oh, I don't know, anyone listed in the yearbook until the list is exhausted?  Or, do investigators, after meeting with the so-called victim and the people SHE says can verify  her story, realize that there is no story there to verify?

Ramirez seemed a bit  reluctant to tell her story.......

This from the Senate investigation report:

In a September 23, 2018, story published in the New Yorker, Deborah Ramirez, who attended Yale at the same time as Justice Kavanaugh, alleged that he “exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.”39 Almost immediately after its publication, the New York Times posted a story that said its staff had interviewed several dozen people but could find no one to corroborate Ramirez’s account or anyone with firsthand knowledge of the alleged event.40 The Times also reported that Ramirez, in effort to refresh her recollection, “contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”41

Hours after the New Yorker published the story, the Committee contacted Ramirez’s attorney. According to the article, Ramirez had investigated her claims and the Committee asked for any evidence—including statements from witnesses—that she had gathered to support her allegations. Through her attorney, she refused each of the Committee’s seven requests for such material.42 The Committee also asked her to either speak to Committee investigators or to provide a written statement directly to the Committee, to which she also refused. Ultimately, her attorneys agreed only to contact the FBI to demand that she be included in the supplemental background investigation. The FBI reportedly interviewed Ramirez on Sunday, September 30, 2018.43
Despite the refusal of Ramirez’s legal team to assist the Committee in its investigation, Committee investigators attempted to investigate her claims to the greatest extent possible, and interviewed seven witnesses regarding the allegation. They included Justice Kavanaugh’s former roommate at Yale, James Roche, several of his college classmates, and classmates and friends associated with Ramirez. Committee investigators also reviewed documents submitted by several former Yale classmates. The Committee also reviewed public statements from three other Yale classmates but found them immaterial because the speakers had no knowledge of the event. Finally, Committee investigators interviewed Justice Kavanaugh in a transcribed phone call on September 25. He unequivocally denied that the alleged incident ever took place.
[/quote]

Why stop at the yearbook? FBI should interview anyone who thinks they have information about the case and follow every lead. No investigation can be too thorough! I am sure they could finish up in a decade or so.

[/quote]

+1
The utter insanity of this witch hunt is staggering.  I’m wondering what these idiots actually think might turn up after 35 years and no substantiating witnesses.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics