Kavanaugh accuser in a nutshell...

[japhy]

Back on track. She is a female, she is obviously lying.

And that was the track that this thread started on. The premise that "if you didn't speak up way back when you were a kid, then it is an indication that the accusation is probably a lie". And that is why this is "apples to apples". If you want to argue the merits of whether a 55 year old man should be held accountable for his actions as a drunken teenager when the rest of his life has been exemplary, that is a valid discussion. If you want to label her a liar for the flimsiest of excuses possible then you are just regurgitating bullshit you heard from someone else. I am giving imzy the benefit of the doubt here because he has listened to reason on occasion in discussions with me and maybe he really doesn't understand. Maybe as in the case of the woman I had to explain it to, he just needed to hear "why" from someone "he knew" even if that is an anonymous user on a message board.

[Leawood]

I’m about to be 55. I knew what was right and wrong when I was 15. It doesn’t matter in reality, which is sad

[HouseDivided]

Back on track. She is a female, she is obviously lying.

And that was the track that this thread started on. The premise that "if you didn't speak up way back when you were a kid, then it is an indication that the accusation is probably a lie". And that is why this is "apples to apples". If you want to argue the merits of whether a 55 year old man should be held accountable for his actions as a drunken teenager when the rest of his life has been exemplary, that is a valid discussion. If you want to label her a liar for the flimsiest of excuses possible then you are just regurgitating bullshit you heard from someone else. I am giving imzy the benefit of the doubt here because he has listened to reason on occasion in discussions with me and maybe he really doesn't understand. Maybe as in the case of the woman I had to explain it to, he just needed to hear "why" from someone "he knew" even if that is an anonymous user on a message board.

So, what does “accountable” look like for a 55-year-old man for deeds supposedly done when he was a high school kid?

What does “accountable” look like when guilt or innocence cannot be proven, and the only likely outcome is to embarrass him at the least and derail his career at worst?

Because he is a man, he must’ve done it? Because he denies it, he hates women?

You’ll have to forgive me if I remain dubious.

BTW - this is apples to the molesting priests’ oranges because (if true) it involves two teenagers, not an adult in authority preying on a helpless child.

[jhawks99]

Back on track. She is a female, she is obviously lying.

And that was the track that this thread started on. The premise that "if you didn't speak up way back when you were a kid, then it is an indication that the accusation is probably a lie". And that is why this is "apples to apples". If you want to argue the merits of whether a 55 year old man should be held accountable for his actions as a drunken teenager when the rest of his life has been exemplary, that is a valid discussion. If you want to label her a liar for the flimsiest of excuses possible then you are just regurgitating bullshit you heard from someone else. I am giving imzy the benefit of the doubt here because he has listened to reason on occasion in discussions with me and maybe he really doesn't understand. Maybe as in the case of the woman I had to explain it to, he just needed to hear "why" from someone "he knew" even if that is an anonymous user on a message board.

So, what does “accountable” look like for a 55-year-old man for deeds supposedly done when he was a high school kid?

What does “accountable” look like when guilt or innocence cannot be proven, and the only likely outcome is to embarrass him at the least and derail his career at worst?

Because he is a man, he must’ve done it? Because he denies it, he hates women?

You’ll have to forgive me if I remain dubious.

BTW - this is apples to the molesting priests’ oranges because (if true) it involves two teenagers, not an adult in authority preying on a helpless child.

But whatever you do, do NOT investigate or listen to corroborating witnesses. That would be wrong.

[HouseDivided]

And that was the track that this thread started on. The premise that "if you didn't speak up way back when you were a kid, then it is an indication that the accusation is probably a lie". And that is why this is "apples to apples". If you want to argue the merits of whether a 55 year old man should be held accountable for his actions as a drunken teenager when the rest of his life has been exemplary, that is a valid discussion. If you want to label her a liar for the flimsiest of excuses possible then you are just regurgitating bullshit you heard from someone else. I am giving imzy the benefit of the doubt here because he has listened to reason on occasion in discussions with me and maybe he really doesn't understand. Maybe as in the case of the woman I had to explain it to, he just needed to hear "why" from someone "he knew" even if that is an anonymous user on a message board.

So, what does “accountable” look like for a 55-year-old man for deeds supposedly done when he was a high school kid?

What does “accountable” look like when guilt or innocence cannot be proven, and the only likely outcome is to embarrass him at the least and derail his career at worst?

Because he is a man, he must’ve done it? Because he denies it, he hates women?

You’ll have to forgive me if I remain dubious.

BTW - this is apples to the molesting priests’ oranges because (if true) it involves two teenagers, not an adult in authority preying on a helpless child.

But whatever you do, do NOT investigate or listen to corroborating witnesses. That would be wrong.

Again I ask - to what purpose?

[jhawks99]

So, what does “accountable” look like for a 55-year-old man for deeds supposedly done when he was a high school kid?

What does “accountable” look like when guilt or innocence cannot be proven, and the only likely outcome is to embarrass him at the least and derail his career at worst?

Because he is a man, he must’ve done it? Because he denies it, he hates women?

You’ll have to forgive me if I remain dubious.

BTW - this is apples to the molesting priests’ oranges because (if true) it involves two teenagers, not an adult in authority preying on a helpless child.

But whatever you do, do NOT investigate or listen to corroborating witnesses. That would be wrong.

Again I ask - to what purpose?

To determine what happened?

[HouseDivided]

But whatever you do, do NOT investigate or listen to corroborating witnesses. That would be wrong.

Again I ask - to what purpose?

To thwart the sitting President’s nomination, even if only for a few more days?

FYP

[ousdahl]

thwart a sitting president’s nomination

lulz

[jhawks99]

Again I ask - to what purpose?

To thwart the sitting President’s nomination, even if only for a few more days?

FYP

The senior senator from Kentucky already did that.

Why do you want a rapist on the Supreme Court?

[HouseDivided]

To thwart the sitting President’s nomination, even if only for a few more days?

FYP

The senior senator from Kentucky already did that.

Why do you want a rapist on the Supreme Court?

I want a conservative Constitutionalist on the Supreme Court. I want him there ASAP.

[jhawks99]

FYP

The senior senator from Kentucky already did that.

Why do you want a rapist on the Supreme Court?

I want a conservative Constitutionalist on the Supreme Court. I want him there ASAP.

No matter what. Got it.

And that he's said that a sitting president should not be indited. Unless they're a Democrat.

[Geezer]

IMHO, a youthful drunken indiscretion may not rise to a disqualifying offense, Lying to a Senate committee investigating your qualifications for a seat on the Court certainly does.

[HouseDivided]

The senior senator from Kentucky already did that.

Why do you want a rapist on the Supreme Court?

I want a conservative Constitutionalist on the Supreme Court. I want him there ASAP.

No matter what. Got it.

And that he's said that a sitting president should not be indited. Unless they're a Democrat.

LOL. This POTUS will not be indicted, no matter how hard you wish for it.

It would also appear that Ms. Ford is going to be demanding that her word be sufficient proof: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/t ... legations/

“In written testimony sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a third named witness has rejected the allegations made by Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser. Having been asked by a Senate staffer to comment on the charges advanced against the nominee, a lawyer for Leland Ingham Keyser wrote:

Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.

Under 18 U.S.C § 1001, letters to the Judiciary Committee are subject to criminal penalty if false.

COMMENTS
Ms. Keyer, whom CNN confirms is “a lifelong friend of Ford’s,” is the third named witness to deny any knowledge of the allegations. The other two, Mark Judge and Patrick Smyth, issued written statements to that effect earlier in the week. Thus far, nobody has backed up the account advanced by Kavanaugh’s accuser, while Kavanaugh and three other named witnesses have rejected it outright.”

But, hey, let’s keep up the charade as long as we can. It makes the disenfranchised snowflakes feel powerful and relevant.

[jhawks99]

She's still the only one asking for an investigation. What are the republicans afraid of?

[HouseDivided]

TIMELINE FOR JUDGE KAVANAUGH'S ACCUSER:

1982: Something happened.

1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002: She said nothing.

July 25, 2003: President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit... She said nothing.

2004-2005: She said nothing.

May 11, 2006: The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary recommended confirmation. Kavanaugh was confirmed by the United States Senate... She said nothing.

June 1, 2006: Sworn in by Justice Anthony Kennedy... She said nothing.

2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011... She said nothing.

2012: She "remembered" something happened in 1982, yet she said nothing.

2013, 2014, 2015: She said nothing.

2016, 2017, 2018: Liberal activist, Anti-Trump protester.

2018: With Kavanaugh's confirmation looming she thinks she should say something but wants to remain anonymous. She comes out and says she's ready to testify. Hires a radical leftist attorney with ties to George Soros. She demands an FBI investigation into a 36-year-old accusation. (Not the FBI's jurisdiction). Leftist Loonies go bat-shit crazy. She decides she doesn't want to testify because 'men' have predetermined the outcome?

She has a degree in Clinical Psychology and a deep-seated hatred for President Trump.

Are you catching on?

Nothing suspicious here . . .

[jhawks99]

I'm not the one who needs to catch on. Why are the republicans afraid of an investigation? You've seen 1st hand accounts of why people don't come out with accusations on this site. Investigate. If she's found to be lying, charger her.

[ousdahl]

sooo psych!

thought experiment: how would you feel about investigating if similar accusations had been levied against Merrick Garland?

(assuming he *actually* got as far as a hearing... it’s quite a thought experiment, I know)

[HouseDivided]

I'm not the one who needs to catch on. Why are the republicans afraid of an investigation? You've seen 1st hand accounts of why people don't come out with accusations on this site. Investigate. If she's found to be lying, charger her.

It’s a delay tactic, pure and simple. A waste of time and money. That’s my objection.

[HouseDivided]

sooo psych!

thought experiment: how would you feel about investigating if similar accusations had been levied against Merrick Garland?

(assuming he *actually* got as far as a hearing... it’s quite a thought experiment, I know)

Lame duck POTUS. Don’t care. Glad he didn’t get in, though.

[DCHawk1]

But whatever you do, do NOT investigate or listen to corroborating witnesses. That would be wrong.

Well...

As the Senate Judiciary Committee staff negotiates with attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of a past sexual assault, over a potential hearing on Thursday, Republican staffers are working to interview those who may have information about the alleged incident.

CNN has learned that the committee has reached out to a longtime friend of Ford named Leland Ingham Keyser.

On Saturday night, her lawyer, Howard Walsh, released a statement to CNN and the Senate Judiciary Committee..

“Simply put,” Walsh said, “Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

The lawyer acknowledged to CNN that Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford’s.

Keyser is the latest person alleged to be at the party to say she has no recollection of it.

“I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article,” a committee staffer wrote Keyser earlier this week.

https://ktvq.com/cnn-us-politics/2018/0 ... out-party/

This poor woman (Dr. Ford) has been taken advantage of.

Politics today sucks.