Kavanaugh accuser wants a full FBI investigation before she testifies

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: queenofswords

and if you had read everything I had posted, you would have seen that it wasn't me that was suggesting that most men are creeps... it was someone else, who, I believe WAS A MAN!!
although there's been at least one women who has as they tried to down play the accusation by making it sound like normal behavior.

Ooh ( raises hand) that would be me and I am not trying to down play anything. The reality is that I simply allowed that Ford may have been an extreme innocent who misinterpreted horseplay or the guy misinterpreted her signals.

The 80s were a different time. Madonna and MTV brought sexual attraction to the forefront. After my dad molested me, the public school enrolled me into an alternative Ed school at 14 since I became somewhat rebellious.

Honestly, at the time it seemed to be the coolest school. Most of the girls were teenage mothers or pregnant. Everyone were partiers. We had our own break room where we could smoke cigarettes, play billiards, table hockey, snack, sandwich, and soda machines. The teachers joined us in the break room and smoked as well.

Naturally, experiences varies for everyone. This was in a small rural town of 3000. Everyone still went to church on Sunday. Honestly, my own daughters today, have corrected me in believing times have changed dramatically. I am horrified as to some of their stories from their teen years that they did not share with me at the time. Now, having children of their own, they have shared these stories with me over concerns for their own children.

Back on track....I am trying to give Ford the benefit of belief that she believes she was almost raped...but with the way she has relayed snippets of the event, it is just extremely difficult to ascertain if she really remembers accurately.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I'm just amazed that the Senate is allowing this sh**show continue, because the longer it drags on, the more it looks like the they're being played for a bunch of fools here.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: soberbacchus


I am amazed that Christine Ford didn't chose the "closed session" testimony. The public isn't voting 'yea' or 'nea'. The Senators are.

Transparency is good and a public eye might keep the GOP Senators from attacking rather than inquiring.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
If they can get this other guy to admit to remembering the event, then this can be over.

That statute of limitations will prevent him from facing any legal repercussions. He would likely face some public backlash, but if he is deep down a fair person, he will see that it is for the good of the nation.

Mark Judge, Kavanaughs best friend in HS, has written books/articles about his extensive drug (mostly coc aine) and alcohol use during his high-school years.

I suspect he would not remember this happening unless it became a big deal at the time and was talked about afterwards.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: soberbacchus


I am amazed that Christine Ford didn't chose the "closed session" testimony. The public isn't voting 'yea' or 'nea'. The Senators are.

Transparency is good and a public eye might keep the GOP Senators from attacking rather than inquiring.

Right

Let see if the democrats inquire Kavanaugh or attack him as well

originally posted by: Xtrozero


In the end of what outside of what teens typically do...

She wasn't raped

She didn't have stitch of clothing removed or ripped

She didn't have her crotch grab Incorrect

She didn't have her breast fondled Incorrect

She didn't get forced into a kiss

So please explain to me what outside of her feeling discomfort with the situation that basically ended into nothing is the crime...

What is the crime committed in the end?

Are people really going to say a crime was committed with ALL of them drinking etc...
Sick defense. Drinking alcohol does not mean you are free to be attacked, groped, raped etc. without consequence for the perpetrators.
YES crimes are committed against women all the time who have been drinking

I'm just going by her words....

You are not going by ALL of her words.

She gave a detailed interview to the press to extrapolate on the letter she sent.

When she went upstairs to use the bathroom, Ford told the Post that she was pushed into a bedroom.

She said Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed and groped her, trying to remove her clothing and a one-piece bathing suit underneath.

(Mark) Judge stood across the room and both of the boys were laughing "maniacally," Ford said.

When she tried to scream, she said Kavanaugh held his hand over her mouth.

"I thought he might inadvertently kill me," she told the Post. "He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing."

www.cbsnews.com...

a reply to: soberbacchus

Good point.
Things were likely a blur for them at the time.
If this other guy made a habit of this behavior, he might not recall the exact occurrence.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: soberbacchus


I am amazed that Christine Ford didn't chose the "closed session" testimony. The public isn't voting 'yea' or 'nea'. The Senators are.

Transparency is good and a public eye might keep the GOP Senators from attacking rather than inquiring.

Right

Let see if the democrats inquire Kavanaugh or attack him as well

Either way, it should be under the public view, not behind closed doors.
There is no national security interest that would be compromised by vetting a Justice for SCOTUS.

a reply to: soberbacchus

That is not detailed.
If she was somehow traumatized and can't remember, that's a shame, but does not remove the need for her to prove what happened.
Her best route forward is to go to the local police.

Congress should not be giving her the time of day.
We now have political operatives advising and coaching both sides on what to say at hearings... so this is just a political game now with the best actor likely to win the public perception vote.
That is why he said/she said disputes should never ever touch the floor of Congress.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: BlueAjah
If they can get this other guy to admit to remembering the event, then this can be over.

That statute of limitations will prevent him from facing any legal repercussions. He would likely face some public backlash, but if he is deep down a fair person, he will see that it is for the good of the nation.

Mark Judge, Kavanaughs best friend in HS, has written books/articles about his extensive drug (mostly coc aine) and alcohol use during his high-school years.

I suspect he would not remember this happening unless it became a big deal at the time and was talked about afterwards.

At the same time, it undermines both sides.

From his own behavior, he's unreliable. She says he was there and participated, so he's a witness for her.

But he's unreliable, and his lawyer's statement says he doesn't recall.

So we're back to square one which is her story full of holes v Kavanaugh's categorical denial and squeaky clean history with lots of support from reliable people, six clean FBI background checks up to this point.

Anyone know what Joe diGenova was talking about regarding PGA golfers having negative info on Ford?

“I can only tell you this. There is more news coming out every day about Dr. Ford,” diGenova claimed on the show.

“The Washington Post is doing a biography on her right now. And in the course of doing so, they contacted, at her request, members of the PGA tour. One of whom told the Post, ‘I don’t think you really want to talk to me.'”

At the end of the show, diGenova said, “I’m for calling in outside witnesses. I want all the PGA golfers who have anything to say about her brought in to testify.” Ingraham then said, “OK, to go to her character?” He replied, “bring in the PGA golfers to testify about her. …

She has put her character at issue. Bring in those golfers! Bring in those golfers!” Ingraham laughed and said, “we’re going to learn more about that, everyone’s wondering, googling LPGA, is it LPGA or PGA?” DiGenova replied, “It’s PGA. It’s the men. Bring in the golfers!”

heavy.com...

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Anyone know what Joe diGenova was talking about regarding PGA golfers having negative info on Ford?

“I can only tell you this. There is more news coming out every day about Dr. Ford,” diGenova claimed on the show.

“The Washington Post is doing a biography on her right now. And in the course of doing so, they contacted, at her request, members of the PGA tour. One of whom told the Post, ‘I don’t think you really want to talk to me.'”

At the end of the show, diGenova said, “I’m for calling in outside witnesses. I want all the PGA golfers who have anything to say about her brought in to testify.” Ingraham then said, “OK, to go to her character?” He replied, “bring in the PGA golfers to testify about her. …

She has put her character at issue. Bring in those golfers! Bring in those golfers!” Ingraham laughed and said, “we’re going to learn more about that, everyone’s wondering, googling LPGA, is it LPGA or PGA?” DiGenova replied, “It’s PGA. It’s the men. Bring in the golfers!”

heavy.com...

That was a weird comment he made...
There was also a comment in the National review about information coming out that will end the debate and exonerate Kavanaugh. Can't think what it could be.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Anyone know what Joe diGenova was talking about regarding PGA golfers having negative info on Ford?

“I can only tell you this. There is more news coming out every day about Dr. Ford,” diGenova claimed on the show.

“The Washington Post is doing a biography on her right now. And in the course of doing so, they contacted, at her request, members of the PGA tour. One of whom told the Post, ‘I don’t think you really want to talk to me.'”

At the end of the show, diGenova said, “I’m for calling in outside witnesses. I want all the PGA golfers who have anything to say about her brought in to testify.” Ingraham then said, “OK, to go to her character?” He replied, “bring in the PGA golfers to testify about her. …

She has put her character at issue. Bring in those golfers! Bring in those golfers!” Ingraham laughed and said, “we’re going to learn more about that, everyone’s wondering, googling LPGA, is it LPGA or PGA?” DiGenova replied, “It’s PGA. It’s the men. Bring in the golfers!”

heavy.com...

That was a weird comment he made...
There was also a comment in the National review about information coming out that will end the debate and exonerate Kavanaugh. Can't think what it could be.

What do you wanna bet we soon discover that Ford is one of those celeb stalkers that make claims about them having relationships with her?

Trump's latest tweet on Ford..he's saying 'show me the evidence'!

Donald J. Trump ‏ Verified account @realDonaldTrump Following Following @realDonaldTrump More

I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!

Regarding the golfers i can't wait to hear that juicy gossip!

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: soberbacchus


I am amazed that Christine Ford didn't chose the "closed session" testimony. The public isn't voting 'yea' or 'nea'. The Senators are.

Transparency is good and a public eye might keep the GOP Senators from attacking rather than inquiring.

Right

Let see if the democrats inquire Kavanaugh or attack him as well

Either way, it should be under the public view, not behind closed doors.
There is no national security interest that would be compromised by vetting a Justice for SCOTUS.

I think it should be open as well, unless she demands her testimony is closed

Her demands to testify are ridiculous though

She has no right to demand that he speak before she does

What good is it to have him respond to accusations he hasn’t heard her fully make under oath?

And her demand Kavanaugh may not have outside counsel question her is also absurd

Imagine being accused of something and not being allowed to question the accuser, and not even being allowed to have your own lawyer question them

a reply to: Grambler

I've found that the most puzzling demands make more sense if you add "LOL" to them.

a reply to: Grambler

Accusations we can't even be sure she is making at this point, since we've only heard from Feinstein and supposedly some lawyers (who judging by Allred, Davis, Avenatti, Cohen, etc are about worthless)

And of course you are right, it makes no sense for Kavanaugh to answer allegations under oath that may or may not even be from the accuser

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: soberbacchus


I am amazed that Christine Ford didn't chose the "closed session" testimony. The public isn't voting 'yea' or 'nea'. The Senators are.

Transparency is good and a public eye might keep the GOP Senators from attacking rather than inquiring.

Right

Let see if the democrats inquire Kavanaugh or attack him as well

Either way, it should be under the public view, not behind closed doors.
There is no national security interest that would be compromised by vetting a Justice for SCOTUS.

I think it should be open as well, unless she demands her testimony is closed

Her demands to testify are ridiculous though

She has no right to demand that he speak before she does

What good is it to have him respond to accusations he hasn’t heard her fully make under oath?

??????

Kavenaugh has the advantage of being able to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee and meet with them after this hearing. The Judiciary can schedule further hearings or private meetings or closed door hearings with Kavenaugh after Ford has her say.

She only has one appearance. Kavenaugh has as many as he asks for or the committee demands.

She wants Kavenaugh to testify FIRST so he is on record, under oath with whatever denials he gives vs. changing his story to suite her testimony.

He absolutely has the chance to rebut her testimony, but he will testify under oath about this accusation and what he does and does not remember FIRST. If he tells the truth, it doesn't matter. His rebuttal will match his first testimony.

originally posted by: Grambler


And her demand Kavanaugh may not have outside counsel question her is also absurd

Imagine being accused of something and not being allowed to question the accuser, and not even being allowed to have your own lawyer question them

This was an equality issue. Can Ford have outside counsel grill Kavenaugh on her behalf on television? The GOP would never let that happen and would never agree.

Thus no reason Kavenaugh should be entitled to advantages not afforded the accuser.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler


And her demand Kavanaugh may not have outside counsel question her is also absurd

Imagine being accused of something and not being allowed to question the accuser, and not even being allowed to have your own lawyer question them

This was an equality issue. Can Ford have outside counsel grill Kavenaugh on her behalf on television? The GOP would never let that happen and would never agree.

Thus no reason Kavenaugh should be entitled to advantages not afforded the accuser.

The rights of the accused to question or have is counsel question the accused is fundamental to our system