By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - 'I was angry and I sent it': Another Justice Brett Kavanaugh accuser referred to FBI after recanting

thismeintiel said:
Wow, and there are still people in here that won't get over it. These women lied. So yea, it's time to move on. Oh, but he raised his voice some during the hearing, so he's unfit. The lengths the Dems will go for power is disgusting. I hope to God they don't take the House. Fortunately, even if they do, it won't be a huge blue wave giving them a super majority. And Dems in more right leaning districts won't be jumping on board with this insanity, either out of principle or to keep their jobs.

You have evidence to say 1 woman lied, not all of them.

And I think you mean the lengths the Republicans will go to for power, such as refusing to hold SC hearings until they control the White House, enacting laws that suppress votes of people likely to vote for their opponents, half-assing a federal investigation that might discredit someone in their ranks, saying they'll lock up thee Dems presidential nominee (if they were so convinced she was a crook, why didn't they get a Muller on her?), reducing the SC vote majority to just 51 when even after all their games they still can't get their way.

I could go on.

Are the Dems perfect? Of course not. I think many of them campaign to impeach Trump now as a way of grandstanding, and it doesn't matter to them if he did actually committed an impeachment offence. But don't pretend the Republicans are saints.



Around the Network
Eagle367 said:
He still isn't fit for the supreme court. He was angry and shouting like crazy. I wouldn't want that for my supreme court justice. Just an outsider's perspective who's neither democrat not republican and as impartial as possible.

I wonder how you'd react if your life was about to be ruined and your family's lives were threatened by political agenda and false and unproven allegation.  Let's not cherry pick the high emotional responses brought upon under ill circumstances over the years of impeccable service.



Then there's this...

Senate Judiciary Republicans say no evidence found to support accusations against Kavanaugh

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee late Saturday released a 414-page report in which the panel members say they found no supporting evidence for any of the allegations of sexual misconduct made against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh ahead of his confirmation.

"Committee investigators spoke with 45 individuals and took 25 written statements relating to the various allegations made in the course of the #SCOTUS confirmation process," the Senate Judiciary Committee tweeted Saturday.

"In neither the committee's investigation nor in the supplemental background investigation conducted by the FBI was there ANY evidence to substantiate or corroborate any of the allegations."

The committee investigators "found no verifiable evidence that supported" Christine Blasey Ford's allegation that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed in the early 1980s and attempted to remove her clothes while covering her mouth with one hand.

"The witnesses that Dr. Ford identified as individuals who could corroborate her allegations failed to do so, and in fact, contradicted her," the report notes.

It also states that committee investigators "found no verifiable evidence" to support Deborah Ramirez's claim that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party when they were both at Yale.

The report additionally dismisses allegations from Julie Swetnick, forwarded by lawyer Michael Avenatti.

"Indeed, the evidence appears to support the position that Julie Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee’s investigation," the report writes.

Avenatti and Swetnick have both been referred to the Department of Justice for potential criminal investigations into their behavior during Kavanaugh's confirmation process. Avenatti has been referred a second time.

In addition, the report details that investigators were also unable to locate supporting evidence for the several anonymous accusations against Kavanaugh, noting that one of the accusers has been referred for a criminal investigation.

Kavanaugh passionately denied all of the allegations against him and was ultimately confirmed after a brutal confirmation fight on Oct. 6 by a vote largely down party lines.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/414792-senate-judiciary-committee-releases-report-on-kavanaugh-finds-no-support-for



SecondWar said:
thismeintiel said:
Wow, and there are still people in here that won't get over it. These women lied. So yea, it's time to move on. Oh, but he raised his voice some during the hearing, so he's unfit. The lengths the Dems will go for power is disgusting. I hope to God they don't take the House. Fortunately, even if they do, it won't be a huge blue wave giving them a super majority. And Dems in more right leaning districts won't be jumping on board with this insanity, either out of principle or to keep their jobs.

You have evidence to say 1 woman lied, not all of them.

And I think you mean the lengths the Republicans will go to for power, such as refusing to hold SC hearings until they control the White House, enacting laws that suppress votes of people likely to vote for their opponents, half-assing a federal investigation that might discredit someone in their ranks, saying they'll lock up thee Dems presidential nominee (if they were so convinced she was a crook, why didn't they get a Muller on her?), reducing the SC vote majority to just 51 when even after all their games they still can't get their way.

I could go on.

Are the Dems perfect? Of course not. I think many of them campaign to impeach Trump now as a way of grandstanding, and it doesn't matter to them if he did actually committed an impeachment offence. But don't pretend the Republicans are saints.

Joe Biden was the first person to argue that no SC should be nominated in an election year.

Democrats were the ones who enacted or put into place the 51 votes rule instead of the classic 60 rule.



Jail for false rape accusers! Having a vagina goesn't give you the right to lie just to see someone you don't like getting his life destroyed.



Around the Network
irstupid said:
SecondWar said:

You have evidence to say 1 woman lied, not all of them.

And I think you mean the lengths the Republicans will go to for power, such as refusing to hold SC hearings until they control the White House, enacting laws that suppress votes of people likely to vote for their opponents, half-assing a federal investigation that might discredit someone in their ranks, saying they'll lock up thee Dems presidential nominee (if they were so convinced she was a crook, why didn't they get a Muller on her?), reducing the SC vote majority to just 51 when even after all their games they still can't get their way.

I could go on.

Are the Dems perfect? Of course not. I think many of them campaign to impeach Trump now as a way of grandstanding, and it doesn't matter to them if he did actually committed an impeachment offence. But don't pretend the Republicans are saints.

Joe Biden was the first person to argue that no SC should be nominated in an election year.

Democrats were the ones who enacted or put into place the 51 votes rule instead of the classic 60 rule.

No, the Republicans put the 51 vote rule in place when the Democrats wouldn't rubber stamp Neil Gorush. This was after the Republicans refused Merrick Garland a hearing during Obama's tenure in the White House. 



irstupid said:
SecondWar said:

You have evidence to say 1 woman lied, not all of them.

And I think you mean the lengths the Republicans will go to for power, such as refusing to hold SC hearings until they control the White House, enacting laws that suppress votes of people likely to vote for their opponents, half-assing a federal investigation that might discredit someone in their ranks, saying they'll lock up thee Dems presidential nominee (if they were so convinced she was a crook, why didn't they get a Muller on her?), reducing the SC vote majority to just 51 when even after all their games they still can't get their way.

I could go on.

Are the Dems perfect? Of course not. I think many of them campaign to impeach Trump now as a way of grandstanding, and it doesn't matter to them if he did actually committed an impeachment offence. But don't pretend the Republicans are saints.

Joe Biden was the first person to argue that no SC should be nominated in an election year.

Democrats were the ones who enacted or put into place the 51 votes rule instead of the classic 60 rule.

That's not what Biden said.  He said in June of 1992 that if a SC position needed to be filled that it should wait until after the election so that it doesn't interfere with the RNC, DNC, etc...

"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Mitch McConnell just twisted the hell out of what he said to make it look like Biden said no to a nominee in an election year.  In other words, Biden was fine with Bush getting to nominate his choice, he just didn't want that process creating further problems before the elections took place. 

 

 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

LivingMetal said:
Eagle367 said:
He still isn't fit for the supreme court. He was angry and shouting like crazy. I wouldn't want that for my supreme court justice. Just an outsider's perspective who's neither democrat not republican and as impartial as possible.

I wonder how you'd react if your life was about to be ruined and your family's lives were threatened by political agenda and false and unproven allegation.  Let's not cherry pick the high emotional responses brought upon under ill circumstances over the years of impeccable service.

There is a difference between false and unproven.

Similarly, I wonder how you'd feel if someone who had committed a serious crime against you was about to gain a significant position of power/success. You spoke out against them, and they dragged you through the mud, branded you a liar and got off scot free.



SecondWar said:
LivingMetal said:

I wonder how you'd react if your life was about to be ruined and your family's lives were threatened by political agenda and false and unproven allegation.  Let's not cherry pick the high emotional responses brought upon under ill circumstances over the years of impeccable service.

There is a difference between false and unproven.

Similarly, I wonder how you'd feel if someone who had committed a serious crime against you was about to gain a significant position of power/success. You spoke out against them, and they dragged you through the mud, branded you a liar and got off scot free.

Probably pretty bad, but thankfully there's no form of evidence to suggest that has occured. Lucky us!



I am currently sigless.

SecondWar said:
LivingMetal said:

I wonder how you'd react if your life was about to be ruined and your family's lives were threatened by political agenda and false and unproven allegation.  Let's not cherry pick the high emotional responses brought upon under ill circumstances over the years of impeccable service.

There is a difference between false and unproven.

Similarly, I wonder how you'd feel if someone who had committed a serious crime against you was about to gain a significant position of power/success. You spoke out against them, and they dragged you through the mud, branded you a liar and got off scot free.

I would call that person out.  I would also recant my statement if there were contradicting evidence because I would never falsely accuse anyone of such wrong doing that would ruin his and his family's lives.  You do know that after the most recent FBI investigation, someone has come out to claim that is was possibly him who was with Dr. Ford and not Justice Kavanaugh, right?

Last edited by LivingMetal - on 05 November 2018