Defamation of Character -Kavanaugh

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: shooterbrody

Kavanaugh's Spokesperson commenting that it was just 'Horseplay'

Kavanaugh's earlier denials of assault and being at the party

Guessing you either didnt watch those videos or linked to the wrong one? Both state that he denies ever being there. The ladies talking in the first one are talking solely about the letter, not any statement that any of it is true....

I think you're just embarrasing yourself now, from the same article, "According to an NBC reporter, Kavanaugh is now expanding the scope of his denial, telling Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch he was never at the party in question."

Even in the video his "spokesperson" said he says he was never there.

The embarrassment will be all over the accuser soon. She is about to be outed as the liar she is.

You're not getting it. His spokesperson said he was never there, and then spends time explaining why it was horseplay that and that isn't a crime. Its a weird juxtaposition to claim to not have committed a crime and also to (through a spokesperson) try to explain that it wasn't even a crime anyways.

No I think you are not understanding properly.

First, I see no proof this is a spokesperson, merely someone who supports his confirmation.

Where is your proof she is speaking on behalf of kavanaugh?

Secondly, she is not suggesting at any point that kavanaugh was there when discussing horse play; she is merely making the reasonable point that this womans story could be interpreted many ways, especially given the large time frame that has passed.

I think that you are terribly mistaken to try to use this comment as proof that kavanaugh is changing his story.

This is a well elucidated rebuttal. I can see your contra-viewpoint and concede that I took the title of 'Spokesperson" too liberally from the video. It could have just been some unaffiliated pundit.

I'm not saying she's denying it, I'm saying that if he wasn't there, he wasn't there; There's no need to then try and prove 'even if he was it wasn't illegal because its not really sexual assault' just seems really weird to me in a suspicious way. My instincts register that tactic as one that a person would use if in fact they had done the act or were afraid of the possibility that they would be found out to have committed it (and therefore serves as a means of getting 'ahead of the game' metaphorically by denouncing that the crime they may have committed isn't even a crime).

originally posted by: dawnstar
He also makes reference to a Bart O'Kavanaugh, telling a story where Bart was drunk after a party and ended up vomiting in someone's car and passing out....
so, unless his buddy the author made up the stories in his book, I think it's safe to say that they were into the party scene at least.

Ford is saying the party took place sometime between 1980 and 1982...geez

I threw up in high school too, and it had more to do with being 17 and not being massively drunk. BTW I would love to see a guy rape a woman that is so drunk they can not remember anything...lol

my problem with this is that well, they were all kids then, and kids do stupid things. if anything did happen, I would tend to blame the parents of these kids for not protecting them from themselves! I just don't believe that the stupid things that kids do should be following them throughout the rest of their lives. can't nothing be proven either way probably at this point and so even if she comes in and testifies, I don't think it will matter any. those who support him and take his side, those who oppose him will proclaim her to be telling the truth. to me, there's seems to be plenty of reasons to reject this nominee... without delving into something that happened so long ago.

Let's say it happened and they all were at least a little drunk...

Lets say he did push her in a room and wrestles on the bed until Judge laughingly jump on both and that ended it all. She doesn't say he grab her crotch or breasts etc. Didn't try to kiss her and anything like that, so what do we have here outside of her saying I thought he was going to kill me... Did he strangle her...punch her until she passed out... put a knife to her throat... come on what was it? Another question might be to ask if she was sexually active or not...

Seems like Ford has some issues if this would be a life long mental problem that she seemed to have used as an excuse to explain her marriage problems.

God are we so weak now...I actually truly dislike the whole #metoo movement. These stupid cases truly desensitizes us to real sexual assault victims. Everyone wants on the victim bandwagon....

a reply to: Xtrozero

She says he tried to remove her clothes against her will. That's all that needs to have happened to be categorically defined as sexual assault.

Regardless of whether Kavanaugh did in fact assault Ford or not, you're making a lot of rape apologist arguments here. It really doesn't sound good.

Nevermind, I found my answer to my own question. She claims this happened in 1982. So, she must have been 14-15 years old at the time.

Am still curious why the other two participants at this party have not been named? Obviously, they would know whether Brett Kavanaugh was even at the party she actually attended. Especially since she was so young at the time.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Vasa Croe

got another article that link won't let me in unless I either subscribe or turn off my ad blocker...
lol... some type of software glitch has made it so I can't selectively turn off my ad blocker and I would need someone more puter savy than me to spend an unacceptable amount of time figuring how to turn it off, and then having to screw around with it again to turn it back on..

Not at the moment....here is the quoted part from her:

It’s a science party!” said biostatistician Christine Blasey, of Palo Alto, who will wear an elaborately knitted cap of the human brain — yarn turned into a supersized cerebral cortex — inspired by the “pussy hats” donned during the Women’s Marches.

a reply to: Xtrozero
and let's just say that the account that read of the incident isn't the same as yours and involved him trying to remove her clothes and rubbing his private parts against her body!

ya know those danged alternate universes interacting with each other again!!!

originally posted by: theatreboy


They better be careful what they wish for...things have a way of coming back on you.

The whole #meto movement has not been very good for the left...its been like a feeding frenzy...

a reply to: Vasa Croe
so she took the idea of a pussy hat and recreated it into an educational tool???
that is your proof??

originally posted by: Wayfarer


Trying to remove clothing is pretty black and white in this regard.

Yea that is what she said..seems none was removed or ripped etc, so once again was he really trying to do that?

originally posted by: olaru12


I think that qualifies as assault sexual or not.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Well you know EVER interaction of anyone with another can also qualify... That is why it is so damn good as a label attack...

a reply to: Xtrozero

the whole meto movement probably wouldn't have the steam it does is we didn't elect a man that was caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women!!

This sounds like a girl that got her cherry popped and was pissed he never called.

originally posted by: Wayfarer


She says he tried to remove her clothes against her will. That's all that needs to have happened to be categorically defined as sexual assault.

Yep I don't disagree... The police report would show no clothing was removed, none was ripped, no marks, no suggestion of touching private areas etc etc...

So what is your point?

a reply to: dawnstar

Did you forget about slick Willy? Why no traction then? Oh that’s right he was a dem so it’s all good.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Wayfarer


Trying to remove clothing is pretty black and white in this regard.

Yea that is what she said..seems none was removed or ripped etc, so once again was he really trying to do that?

You're just now arriving at the point the rest of us are waiting at. We don't know. Republican's don't want an investigation (obviously), but without diggin into it further it can't really move past this point.

Tangentially, its not really Ford's accusation/letter that the Republicans are fearful of, its Kavanaugh's friend Judge who they are terrified of getting up and talking (and by proxy having his words associated with Kavanaugh) since he's so toxic.

a reply to: Xtrozero

so, just because he didn't have time or maybe the ability to actually take any clothes off means that he wasn't trying to?? I mean, hy what I read, I think he had her pinned down, was on top of her... one hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming, leaving only one hand free.. and if she was struggling, trying to hit him or something to get him off of her, well, that one hand might have been spending more time trying to keep her pinned while protecting himself.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Xtrozero
and let's just say that the account that read of the incident isn't the same as yours and involved him trying to remove her clothes and rubbing his private parts against her body!

ya know those danged alternate universes interacting with each other again!!!

lol did you just add this "rubbing his private parts against her body!" or was that a statement she made? The problem is there just isn't much there even in her words... How hard would it be to pull down a one piece swim suit, or touch private areas or try and force a kiss?

In the end nothing happened... Can't say that would be a life long emotional event.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Xtrozero

the whole meto movement probably wouldn't have the steam it does is we didn't elect a man that was caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women!!

Ya whatever....

Why would anyone be "fearful" of accounts of a teen booze party?
NONE of them will be credible.
Waiting 36 years to accuse a public figure is pretty telling dont you think?

If she refuses to testify, it's safe to assume she knows it's all BS, and she straight up lied. If that's the case, bring out the pitchforks.

I'm all for justice, but that's not justice....thats an assumption. Innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone, don't just assume she's guilty if she doesn't testify. Sure it looks bad, but it's not solid enough to crucify her.....

A2D