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

NightlyPoe said: 
Hiku said: 

They didn't even bother questioning the woman who credibly (GOP members and Trump's own words) accused Kavanaugh after taking and passing the most accurate type of polygraph.

Was there something more Ford wanted to tell the FBI that she couldn't tell the Senate?  What's the basis of this complaint?

The Senate are not trained to interrogate. There are also names of people who may have information that can come from their questioning that would not be relevant to bring up during the senate hearing. She also wanted help to find out Mike Judge's work schedule at the time, etc. They should have also interviewed Kavanaugh. Especially after he was adamant about avoiding an FBI investigation whenever he was asked.

NightlyPoe said: 
Not to mention him obviously committing perjury by claiming Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, among other things. And he's a judge. Who seemingly thinks it's ok to lie under oath. But it's ok to have a supreme court justice who doesn't give two shits about the oath?

Several people have confirmed that Devil's Triangle was a drinking game both at Kavanaugh's school and also by people who say Kavanaugh taught him the game.

And if you think they're all lying, I'll remind you that the term was used several times in that yearbook.  And then I'll also remind you that this was the early-80s and we're talking about a bunch of boys at a prep school.  Now, do you think it's likely that there was a ton of guys at Kavanaugh's school that yelled out to the world that they liked to get naked with other dudes?

The devil's triangle perjury is wishful thinking.

And several of Kavanaugh's classmates have also said that Devil's Triangle WAS about sex, and that they're shocked he lied about it, etc. Including his former roommate.

“I was shocked when I heard that. Those words were commonly used, and they were references to sexual activities,” Roche said. “If you think about the context in which you might hear those words, the way that he described them and the way that they are defined, they are not interchangeable. I heard them talk about it regularly.”

And a New York Times editor wrote: 

Based on extensive interviews by me and @katekelly with Kavanaugh's former Georgetown Prep classmates, what he just said about the meanings of "boofed" and "Devil's Triangle" is not true.

If Devil's Triangle was commonly known as a sexual reference, as we know it is, then according to Kavanaugh he just threw out a common sexual reference in his yearbook, without any context, under a list of his accomplishments, but was actually referring to a drinking game. You buy that?
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't just write "69" in my yearbook as an accomplishment with no further context, unless I wanted people to think I was referring to the sexual position.

Boys at prep schools partied with girls on the weekends, so they can make sexual references all they want. And Boofing is not flatulence. And Renate Alumni is not referring to "something nice" about her. Anyone reading that sentence without any additional context would obviously assume it meant they hooked up. Which is exactly what she did when she found out about it. And there's no way Kavanaugh didn't realize that when he wrote it. Complete BS.
He definitely lied under oath. 

NightlyPoe said: 

The two charges of perjury that Democrats had previously been making were specious at best and relied on reading individual sentences instead of the broader scope of the answers.  For example, in one Kavanaugh said he wasn't handling Pickering's nomination.  Democrats found an email where he talked about the Pickering nomination.

Aha right!?  Well, no.  Kavanaugh, in his original testimony went on to say that he was somewhat involved and may even have participated in a mock hearing with him.  "Handling" meant more that Pickering was his judge.

Aside, Pickering was falsely accused of racism by Democrats.  So smearing a person's good name for political reasons is an old game for Democrats.

Same thing with the other one involving Democrats having their emails leaked.  Democrats actually knew this back when Kavanaugh was first confirmed as a Circuit judge, but didn't even accuse him of perjury back then, not because they didn't have documents, but because it was a ridiculous charge as it didn't contradict his full statement.

BTW, those leaked Democrat emails?  Well, they showed Democrats getting together to deny a Latino a judgeship specifically because they were afraid that he'd become the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.  The method they decided to use?  Well, they just kept demanding documents be released until the Bush administration had to exert executive privilege, and then Democrats made him (Miguel Estrada) the first nominee ever killed by a filibuster.

Yeah, Democrats have been playing the game of making unreasonable demands for documents and then using it as an excuse for killing a nominee as well.  It's a favorite strategy.

The senate wanted to know Kavanaugh's involvement with Pickering's nomination. Aside from claiming Pickering wasn't one of the nominees he was handling, when asked to identify which nominees he had worked on “in any capacity”, he named six appeals court nominees, “among others,” he had aided in the confirmation process, such as by “reviewing nomination paperwork and preparing for hearings,” and did not include Judge Pickering.

However, when a room was being reserved for a Pickering event, it was Judge Kavanaugh who was consulted. When the White House press office needed materials about Judge Pickering, it was Judge Kavanaugh who asked the Justice Department for the files and relayed them. When a senator’s chief of staff was coming to the White House to discuss Judge Pickering and another nominee, it was Judge Kavanaugh who planned to meet with her.

It certainly looks like he was quite involved, but mislead the senate with his answers.

And in May 2003, another White House official told Judge Kavanaugh that she had “asked for the Pickering package they are distributing” and was “sending it your way to review.” When he asked whom “they” referred to, she replied: “The Pickering team. Chip, Chip’s COS and whoever else they are using. You should know them” — adding “hehe.” (Judge Pickering’s son, Charles Pickering, known as Chip, was a Republican congressman at the time, and COS means “chief of staff.”)

Anyway, I'm not a judge. My point was that this was under process of investigation in the D.C. circuit. But the GOP did not care about the conclusion of an investigation pertaining to potential perjury for a supreme court nominee.
They should just have picked someone else when these things surfaced. Niel Gorsich was not under investigation for perjury, sexual assault, and sexual misconduct.

Last edited by Hiku - on 05 November 2018

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
irstupid said:

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. 

 

 

I have no idea what Mitch McConnell said. I only read what Biden said when I heard that he said it in the past, so my statement was based off of my interpretation of what he said. Let's go over what he said then.

"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.

In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Trump nominations to date. One can imagine the role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down. (How does that sound? Sounds like today's climate perfectly. Dems would be screaming about waiting to nominate until after Nov 6th, if anyone would have died/resigned earlier this year)

"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.

So what he is saying here is what exactly? Sounds like he is saying that a president should not nominate a successor before the next group of senators are voted on and cemented into place. Otherwise what? 

"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."

How does this not sound like something that perfectly illustrates today again. Partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties. 



Hiku said:
o_O.Q said:

" They didn't even bother questioning the woman who credibly (GOP members and Trump's own words) accused Kavanaugh after taking and passing the most accurate type of polygraph"

apparently ford lied about coaching for polygraph tests

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/ex-boyfriend-christine-blasey-ford-polygraph.html

 

i thought they were all credible btw? what happened to #believewomen?

 

", while Kavanaugh refused to do the same and opposed an FBI investigation every time he was asked."

he was investigated by the fbi numerous times previously

First of all, are you capable of commenting without generalizing people under positions they've never once held in their life?
It would be nice if you and people like yourself would refrain from constantly doing that, as it does nothing but waste the time of people having to defend themselves from a position they never held in the first place.

If you ever saw me say say something specific, call me out on it. If not, don't do this BS where you're assuming that everyone you talk to is of the same cookiecutter mindset you've convinced yourself of. It's incredibly toxic.

I've never once said "women are all credible". And not only because that's an idiotic statement. I've said "accusers should be heard."
But thanks for assuming otherwise.

As for the accusation you link to, that's an alleged former boyfriend that someone told the New York Times is a man named Brian Merrick. Get back to me when a man with that name comes forward, testifies under oath, or passes a polygraph test, which is what she did about Kavanaugh. Because a statement from someone who may or may not be who NYT's source thinks he is, is not the equivalent of a polygraph test and a testimony under oath. Especially when his story is contested by the person she supposedly helped.

What's your criteria for believing this alleged boyfriend? Because my criteria was pretty simple. Those who take and pass the most accurate type of polygraph, and those who ask for an FBI investigation look much more credible than those who refuse to take a polygraph (even after speaking very highly of them previously) and oppose an FBI investigation every time they're asked.


^Kavanaugh's words.

Not to mention him obviously committing perjury by claiming Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, among other things. And he's a judge. Who seemingly thinks it's ok to lie under oath. But it's ok to have a supreme court justice who doesn't give two shits about the oath? And it's not the first time he seemingly lied under oath, which is a criminal offense. Two other occasions were discovered in the hundreds of thousand pages of documents that the GOP didn't want Democrats to read until 15 hours before the hearing. And a criminal investigation into this was initiated in Washington, but as you know the GOP were not interested in waiting for the outcome of it, but decided to push him through as soon as possible as their candidate regardless of that.
And it was several GOP members own words that Ford was credible overall.

And regardless of previous FBI investigations, once she stepped forward with this allegation, took a polygraph, and other former classmates of his started talking about how they remember another woman claiming he pressed his junk in her face at a party, which sparked another investigation and accusation, Kavanaugh would always refer to "whatever the committee wants to do" whenever he was asked if the FBI should investigate these charges. And as was well known, the committee made it perfectly clear that they saw no need for an FBI investigation. If I were innocent I would beg for an FBI investigation. He instead chose to make himself look infinitely more suspicious in front of millions of Americans and people overseas.
And when asked to take the polygraph that he previously explained serve law enforcement to deem not only the credibility of witnesses, but also who is suited for critical law enforcement positions, both of which are relevant in this case, he suddenly doesn't want to and says they are unreliable.

Yeah that's not a bad look when your accuser passes the polygraph and asks for an investigation, and you do the opposite. Remove all the politics, and everyone would think the same.

As for Ford, it's possible she may not have been truthful about some details. Just like Kavanaugh seemingly lied about things like the meaning of certain words to appear to be different than he actually was, I can understand the reasoning behind that. But she is not a fedaral judge lying under oath. And when it comes to the events she described, which is that Kavanaugh pulled her into a room, turned up the music and covered her mouth while trying to remove her clothes, she passed the most accurate type of polygraph, according to the former FBI agent who administered it. That, along with calling for an FBI investigation weighs a lot more than dodging polygraphs and opposing an investigation.

 

"If you ever saw me say say something specific, call me out on it. If not, don't do this BS where you're assuming that everyone you talk to is of the same cookiecutter mindset you've convinced yourself of."

you should have more sympathy for me, you have no idea on the kind of toll being constantly disappointed has

 

"I've never once said "women are all credible". "

and i didn't say you did, what i was commenting on were the women involved with kavanaugh

 

" And not only because that's an idiotic statement. I've said "accusers should be heard."

But thanks for assuming otherwise."

but isn't it just as idiotic to imply that accusers aren't heard? are you implying that women when they report their cases to the police are not taken seriously? why, therefore, have we made sexual assault and rape illegal? going as far in some cases as making staring too hard illegal?

 

"Because a statement from someone who may or may not be who NYT's source thinks he is, is not the equivalent of a polygraph test and a testimony under oath."

i guess so, but he's an accuser right? so we should hear what he has to say right?

 

"Not to mention him obviously committing perjury by claiming Devil's Triangle is a drinking game"

its not? can't people drink and have sex and consider that a drinking game?

 

"Who seemingly thinks it's ok to lie under oath."

but any reasonable person doesn't think that the example you provided above is evidence of lying anyway so i really don't know how to respond to that, do you have another example?

 

"and other former classmates of his"

you don't mean the classmates who claim they don't recall there even being a party right?



melbye said:
So that means all the additional accusations after the first one are proven false, right? So ridiculous, and frankly sick. So glad they didn't get away with using something so serious as sexual assault to destroy an innocent man

No. And I believe this is a detail a lot of people are going to miss, even though it's specified in the article. I'll tag anyone else I see in this post later.

“that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original Jane Doe letter.”"

This allegation came from an anonymous letter under the name 'Jane Doe'.
Later on, someone claiming to be Jane Doe stepped forward. But she made that up. She was not the person who sent that letter.
Whoever Jane Doe is, we still don't know.

Another woman by the name of Deborah Ramirez claims that Kavanaugh pushed his junk in her face at a party. This accusation did not originate from herself, but former classmates of theirs started discussing this incident around the time Dr Ford stepped forward. They said they remembered people at their school talking about this at the time it happened. Investigators contacted Ramirez to ask if it was true, and she said it was.
However, there's no evidence that it took place. Only that people at the time remember talking about it.

Then there's Julie Swetnick who's claim is currently under investigation.

So to summarize, right now the only accusation that is proven to be false is the one from the woman claiming to be Jane Doe, even though she wasn't.
This isn't really a case where you can prove things one way or another though.

Last edited by Hiku - on 05 November 2018

Hiku said:
melbye said:
So that means all the additional accusations after the first one are proven false, right? So ridiculous, and frankly sick. So glad they didn't get away with using something so serious as sexual assault to destroy an innocent man

No. And I believe this is a detail a lot of people are going to miss, even though it's specified in the article. I'll tag anyone else I see in this post later.

“that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original Jane Doe letter.”"

This allegation came from an anonymous letter under the name 'Jane Doe'.
Later on, someone claiming to be Jane Doe stepped forward. But she made that up. She was not the person who sent that letter.
Whoever Jane Doe is, we still don't know.

Another woman by the name of Deborah Ramirez claims that Kavanaugh pushed his junk in her face at a party. This accusation did not originate from herself, but former classmates of theirs started discussing this incident around the time Dr Ford stepped forward. They said they remembered people at their school talking about this at the time it happened. Investigators contacted Ramirez to ask if it was true, and she said it was.
However, there's no evidence that it took place. Only that people at the time remember talking about it.

Then there's Julie Swetnick who's claim is currently under investigation.

So to summarize, right now the only accusation that is proven to be false is the one from the woman claiming to be Jane Doe, even though she wasn't.
This isn't really a case where you can prove things one way or another though.

"Another woman by the name of Deborah Ramirez claims that Kavanaugh pushed his junk in her face at a party"

that's interesting, how? did he do a hand stand walk up to her or something?



Around the Network
OTBWY said:
Daily Caller. That should say enough.

you're accusing them of making a false accusation?



o_O.Q said:
Hiku said:

No. And I believe this is a detail a lot of people are going to miss, even though it's specified in the article. I'll tag anyone else I see in this post later.

“that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original Jane Doe letter.”"

This allegation came from an anonymous letter under the name 'Jane Doe'.
Later on, someone claiming to be Jane Doe stepped forward. But she made that up. She was not the person who sent that letter.
Whoever Jane Doe is, we still don't know.

Another woman by the name of Deborah Ramirez claims that Kavanaugh pushed his junk in her face at a party. This accusation did not originate from herself, but former classmates of theirs started discussing this incident around the time Dr Ford stepped forward. They said they remembered people at their school talking about this at the time it happened. Investigators contacted Ramirez to ask if it was true, and she said it was.
However, there's no evidence that it took place. Only that people at the time remember talking about it.

Then there's Julie Swetnick who's claim is currently under investigation.

So to summarize, right now the only accusation that is proven to be false is the one from the woman claiming to be Jane Doe, even though she wasn't.
This isn't really a case where you can prove things one way or another though.

"Another woman by the name of Deborah Ramirez claims that Kavanaugh pushed his junk in her face at a party"

that's interesting, how? did he do a hand stand walk up to her or something?

I don't recall at this moment with certainty, but from what I remember she was sitting down. Don't know if it was on a sofa, some stairs, the floor, etc. I would have to refresh my memory though, so it's best you read it for yourself if you're curious.



Hiku said:
melbye said:
So that means all the additional accusations after the first one are proven false, right? So ridiculous, and frankly sick. So glad they didn't get away with using something so serious as sexual assault to destroy an innocent man

No. And I believe this is a detail a lot of people are going to miss, even though it's specified in the article. I'll tag anyone else I see in this post later.

“that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original Jane Doe letter.”"

This allegation came from an anonymous letter under the name 'Jane Doe'.
Later on, someone claiming to be Jane Doe stepped forward. But she made that up. She was not the person who sent that letter.
Whoever Jane Doe is, we still don't know.

Another woman by the name of Deborah Ramirez claims that Kavanaugh pushed his junk in her face at a party. This accusation did not originate from herself, but former classmates of theirs started discussing this incident around the time Dr Ford stepped forward. They said they remembered people at their school talking about this at the time it happened. Investigators contacted Ramirez to ask if it was true, and she said it was.
However, there's no evidence that it took place. Only that people at the time remember talking about it.

Then there's Julie Swetnick who's claim is currently under investigation.

So to summarize, right now the only accusation that is proven to be false is the one from the woman claiming to be Jane Doe, even though she wasn't.
This isn't really a case where you can prove things one way or another though.

swetnick is the one who claims that kavanaugh gang raped her right?



Torillian said:
SpokenTruth said:

I've linked that stat several times already.  They will ignore it....again.

I don't even mind disagreeing with the stat, but can we at least agree on how math works? "I found two examples and thus I think this instance is statistically common" or "The polls said Trump most likely wouldn't win and he did so now stats are all worthless" is just not how math works. If we can't even agree on that we're doomed from the start. 

Yeah, and by the way, the polls not only had a margin of error by 2~4% iirc, but they were also polling people on who they would vote for.
And most people did vote for Hillary. Trump won due to how the electoral college works.

Last edited by Hiku - on 05 November 2018

o_O.Q said:
Hiku said:

No. And I believe this is a detail a lot of people are going to miss, even though it's specified in the article. I'll tag anyone else I see in this post later.

“that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original Jane Doe letter.”"

This allegation came from an anonymous letter under the name 'Jane Doe'.
Later on, someone claiming to be Jane Doe stepped forward. But she made that up. She was not the person who sent that letter.
Whoever Jane Doe is, we still don't know.

Another woman by the name of Deborah Ramirez claims that Kavanaugh pushed his junk in her face at a party. This accusation did not originate from herself, but former classmates of theirs started discussing this incident around the time Dr Ford stepped forward. They said they remembered people at their school talking about this at the time it happened. Investigators contacted Ramirez to ask if it was true, and she said it was.
However, there's no evidence that it took place. Only that people at the time remember talking about it.

Then there's Julie Swetnick who's claim is currently under investigation.

So to summarize, right now the only accusation that is proven to be false is the one from the woman claiming to be Jane Doe, even though she wasn't.
This isn't really a case where you can prove things one way or another though.

swetnick is the one who claims that kavanaugh gang raped her right?

No, that was the original author of the Jane Doe letter. We don't know who she is.
Swetnick claims that she was gang raped at a party that Kavanaugh attended. Not that she was raped by Kavanaugh.

However she also says she witnessed him and Mike Judge "consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women", and efforts by him and his friend Mike Judge "to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys. I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms and many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh,"

Last edited by Hiku - on 05 November 2018