Kreepy Kavanaugh

[bellisarius]

Yes, I read your post about the calendar. I was taken aback.
Can you give me some detailed links?

It might well be that it doesn't apply to the date that Ford had in mind.
Everything about her allegations seemed so credible to me. And it was the Democrats, not her, who decided to reveal them only 6 weeks later, at such a crucial time.

Yes, it was the democrats who are manipulating her. To the point that her life is going to be shit going forward. Does anyone in their right mind think they can make these sort of allegations and retain anonymity?

Did something happen in her past? Most likely, most folks who aren't in an institution or living on the street are unlikely to make stories up out of whole cloth. ("Most" is the operative word in that sentence, there are exceptions.) As I posted before elsewhere, not knowing when or where but knowing with certainty the who while admitting being under the influence is NOT very credible. Especially when all named witnesses deny it ever happened. Has her mind allowed her to try to fill in the blanks? We'll probably never know, the mind is a tricky thing............especially after so much time.

In both of these women's case the fact that unnamed parties said they "heard about the incident" is of no consideration. That is called hearsay evidence and is inadmissible in a court of law. Granted, these hearing are not a court of law but the democrats are trying to have it both ways. In every real sense they are putting Kavanaugh on trial while using every dodge at their disposal to avoid following any of the rules of jurisprudence.

My question to you is why you think that the first woman is credible but the second not when both stories are so remarkably similar?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Ford won't have a firm idea of what date she wishes to designate until she sees the notebook. She's lying for the cause. Show her the calendar and she'll remember the date, you betcha!

Here's one: https://nypost.com/2018/09/23/kavanaugh-will-use-1982-calendar-to-deny-sex-assault-claims/

Just search on "kavanaugh calendar."

The calendars she didn’t know about. The same calendars that appeared after the Rupublicans knew there were other accusers?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Yes, it was the democrats who are manipulating her. To the point that her life is going to be shit going forward. Does anyone in their right mind think they can make these sort of allegations and retain anonymity?

Did something happen in her past? Most likely, most folks who aren't in an institution or living on the street are unlikely to make stories up out of whole cloth. ("Most" is the operative word in that sentence, there are exceptions.) As I posted before elsewhere, not knowing when or where but knowing with certainty the who while admitting being under the influence is NOT very credible. Especially when all named witnesses deny it ever happened. Has her mind allowed her to try to fill in the blanks? We'll probably never know, the mind is a tricky thing............especially after so much time.

In both of these women's case the fact that unnamed parties said they "heard about the incident" is of no consideration. That is called hearsay evidence and is inadmissible in a court of law. Granted, these hearing are not a court of law but the democrats are trying to have it both ways. In every real sense they are putting Kavanaugh on trial while using every dodge at their disposal to avoid following any of the rules of jurisprudence.

My question to you is why you think that the first woman is credible but the second not when both stories are so remarkably similar?

How carefully did you read it?

Richard Oh, an emergency-room doctor in California,

Mark Krasberg, an assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of New Mexico

 

[SpeareChucker]

She didn't "pop up," the New Yorker found out that Yalies who knew Kavanaugh back in the day were emailing each other, "Hey, remember that time when he shoved his penis in that girl's face?" The reporters found Ramirez while working that lead.


Of course, if he didn't have "Will expose cock to women who didn't ask to see it" written on his calendar, you'll probably find that exculpatory.

emailing each other 30 years ago?

 

[bellisarius]

How carefully did you read it?

Richard Oh, an emergency-room doctor in California,

Mark Krasberg, an assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of New Mexico

So now you have names to go with the hearsay. People who weren't there and saw nothing. While those that were there say it never happened.

 

[Aglaopheme]

I stand corrected.

You're welcome.

 

[Aglaopheme]

emailing each other 30 years ago?

Emailing each other when his name hit the news, as it clearly states in the article.

 

[Ramone45]

Piggish behavior, all the way to the top, by the right is nothing new.

I've never known anyone on the left to behave piggishly.

 

[SpeareChucker]

*chuckle*


More sudden recall from Yale Leftists...

 

[Rightguide]

Ha Have you heard his or thier testimonies? Have you analyzed his or thier demeanors as he/they testified? have you seen him or them placed under oath?

Yes the judge has given an official statement of denial to the Committee subject to the consequences of 18 U.S. Code § 1001 which carries a five year federal prison sentence. Ford has done nothing in comparison. To date hers is an uncorroborated accusation deliberately withheld until after the hearing has ended and four days before the scheduled vote. Her motivation is clear. the Democrat's motivation is clear, and consistent with their ongoing 30 year conspiracy to subvert the confirmation process and reject any judge who swears to uphold the Constitution from the bench.

How can you assess these claims as credible without any of the above? How can you make a judgement without even knowing if he did in fact commit these crimes or having actually him or the women testify? The Republicans have created a Soviet style Star Chamber proceeding with the bots to back up thief lunacy. The women are the real victims here.

I judge Kavanaugh on an uninterrupted 30 year stellar reputation for judicial excellence and integrity that certainly trumps an uncorroborated political accusation of an alleged childhood event that unproved bears in no way on his present qualifications for office.

 

[Adre]

F

Yes the judge has given an official statement of denial to the Committee subject to the consequences of 18 U.S. Code § 1001 which carries a five year federal prison sentence. Ford has done nothing in comparison. To date hers is an uncorroborated accusation deliberately withheld until after the hearing has ended and four days before the scheduled vote. Her motivation is clear. the Democrat's motivation is clear, and consistent with their ongoing 30 year conspiracy to subvert the confirmation process and reject any judge who swears to uphold the Constitution from the bench.

All judges swear that, dumdum.

 

[Rightguide]

All judges swear that, dumdum.

Yeah but only conservatives actually do it.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Lest we forget, Gorsuch was confirmed with Democratic votes just this past year.

 

[Ramone45]

Of course I do not believe that two wrongs make a right.

I believe that Kavanaigh’s criminal behavior is disgusting.

I believe that actions set a precedence.

I believe that Republicans are going to be drowning in a new Year if the Women.

I believe it’ll be a very very long time before women, the majority of women, come back to the Republican Party, if ever.

http://imgur.com/gallery/LTq8h7j

 

[beew]

I'm not referring to the factual evidence (or lack of). Just to the plausability of their accounts.

What Ford described was, without any doubt, attempted rape.

As to Ramirez's account - it seems likely that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a party, but we don't know the real context:
--Was it in the context of a 'drinking or daring game' that escalated to more "I dare you to..." or sexualised jokes and inuendoes? Ramirez, as a Catholic with strict parents might have been ashamed and remorseful of her part in it after the fact, especially since people gossipped about it. So she had all the interest to present a more flattering version of events.
-- Or was it an attempted sexual assault?

My question to you is why you think that the first woman is credible but the second not when both stories are so remarkably similar?

Quotes from her account of events are in the indented parts:

Her account, while pointing at assault, has a few question marks for me (a few vague comments, passive voice).
Most of all, why would bystanders cheer them, if it was all clearly an attempted assault? Unless they were all part of Kavanaugh's gang rape - frat boys. Like the lawyer alleges.

"I remember a penis being in front of my face,' Ramirez said.
'I knew that's not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.'
At that moment, Ramirez said she commented: 'That's not a real penis.'
She said that the other students began laughing at her and taunting her.
One of the students allegedly told her to 'kiss it.'
She said she pushed the person away, forcing her to touch it."​

Why would somebody brag or laugh about witnessing an attempted assault?

"Ramirez said she remembers another student talking about the incident.
'Somebody yelled down the hall, "Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face",' she said."
​

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...on-Yale-classmate-claims-exposed-himself.html

 

[Rightguide]

Lest we forget, Gorsuch was confirmed with Democratic votes just this past year.

La de da, how many?

Ruth Ginsburg was voted in 96-3. It isn't Republicans who are turning the Senate into a circus and subverting the confirmation process.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Warning: My client re Kavanaugh has previously done work within the State Dept, U.S. Mint, & DOJ. She has been granted multiple security clearances in the past including Public Trust & Secret. The GOP and others better be very careful in trying to suggest that she is not credible

https://twitter.com/michaelavenatti/status/1044233074609811456?s=21

 

[bellisarius]

I'm not referring to the factual evidence (or lack of). Just to the plausability of their accounts.

What Ford described was, without any doubt, attempted rape.

As to Ramirez's account - it seems likely that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a party, but we don't know the real context:
--Was it in the context of a 'drinking or daring game' that escalated to more "I dare you to..." or sexualised jokes and inuendoes? Ramirez, as a Catholic with strict parents might have been ashamed and remorseful of her part in it after the fact, especially since people gossipped about it. So she had all the interest to present a more flattering version of events.
-- Or was it an attempted sexual assault?





Quotes from her account of events are in the indented parts:

Her account, while pointing at assault, has a few question marks for me (a few vague comments, passive voice).
Most of all, why would bystanders cheer them, if it was all clearly an attempted assault? Unless they were all part of Kavanaugh's gang rape - frat boys. Like the lawyer alleges.

"I remember a penis being in front of my face,' Ramirez said.
'I knew that's not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.'
At that moment, Ramirez said she commented: 'That's not a real penis.'
She said that the other students began laughing at her and taunting her.
One of the students allegedly told her to 'kiss it.'
She said she pushed the person away, forcing her to touch it."​

Why would somebody brag or laugh about witnessing an attempted assault?

"Ramirez said she remembers another student talking about the incident.
'Somebody yelled down the hall, "Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face",' she said."
​

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...on-Yale-classmate-claims-exposed-himself.html

Look, both stories could be credible given any corroborating evidence or testimony, of which there is none. I have never stated otherwise.

Your posted quote yields yet another troubling statement. The one I emboldened. Friends DO NOT call each other by their full name. In civilian life it is the first name only that is used, if it were the military it would have been the last name (and in that case far more credible).

 

[BoyNextDoor]

She didn't "pop up," the New Yorker found out that Yalies who knew Kavanaugh back in the day were emailing each other, "Hey, remember that time when he shoved his penis in that girl's face?" The reporters found Ramirez while working that lead.


Of course, if he didn't have "Will expose cock to women who didn't ask to see it" written on his calendar, you'll probably find that exculpatory.

You could write for Colbert.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Yes the judge has given an official statement of denial to the Committee subject to the consequences of 18 U.S. Code § 1001 which carries a five year federal prison sentence. Ford has done nothing in comparison. To date hers is an uncorroborated accusation deliberately withheld until after the hearing has ended and four days before the scheduled vote. Her motivation is clear. the Democrat's motivation is clear, and consistent with their ongoing 30 year conspiracy to subvert the confirmation process and reject any judge who swears to uphold the Constitution from the bench.




I judge Kavanaugh on an uninterrupted 30 year stellar reputation for judicial excellence and integrity that certainly trumps an uncorroborated political accusation of an alleged childhood event that unproved bears in no way on his present qualifications for office.

A) he has lied under oath before.

B) " 30 year stellar reputation for judicial excellence and integrity" this is the same guy that turned Whitewater investigation into a cum stained dress, then did a complete backfilp as he wanted to advance his career. He is just a political hack.

 

[Rightguide]

A) he has lied under oath before.

B) " 30 year stellar reputation for judicial excellence and integrity" this is the same guy that turned Whitewater investigation into a cum stained dress, then did a complete backfilp as he wanted to advance his career. He is just a political hack.

^^^
Refuted bullshit.

 

[Rightguide]

https://twitter.com/michaelavenatti/status/1044233074609811456?s=21

Ahahaha...BFD.

 

[beew]

Look, both stories could be credible given any corroborating evidence or testimony, of which there is none. I have never stated otherwise.

Your posted quote yields yet another troubling statement. The one I emboldened. Friends DO NOT call each other by their full name. In civilian life it is the first name only that is used, if it were the military it would have been the last name (and in that case far more credible).

Apparently Dems. approached Ramirez, after they found some papertrail:

So it looks like something Did happen at a party.
For me, the issue becomes: do we believe Ramirez's version of events (attempted assault), or did she distort facts? Then and/or now.
I go with the latter.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

La de da, how many?

Ruth Ginsburg was voted in 96-3. It isn't Republicans who are turning the Senate into a circus and subverting the confirmation process.

Maybe they should try nominating less controversial people. Just sayin'

 

[Rightguide]

Maybe they should try nominating less controversial people. Just sayin'

Doesn't matter to Democrats. They do not want the Constitution upheld from the SCOTUS. After all this is how they impose those agenda items on the rest of us they can't achieve in the democratic legislative process.