Now made a federal case by DiFi and the desperately silly democrats.
Printable View
Now made a federal case by DiFi and the desperately silly democrats.
????
OK, I got DiFi to mean Diane Feinstein but ither than that I'm lost. Off to google
edit: I assume its this
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...et-letter.html
yet another lame political move.
Typical political crap. Kavanaugh has had meetings with 65 Senators including Feinstein, plenty of time to bring up any accusations, even one from high school.
But bc this is so thin it wouldn't do much politically to bring it up earlier in the process, so they are using it as a last minute thing to try to derail it with innuendo b/c if they put this out in July they didn't think they had enough actual facts from it to make a difference.
That's the only reason you sandbag this stuff, b/c you don't think it will hold up to longer term scrutiny. They've got some kind of undisclosed accusation from someone who probably just coincidentally happens to hate Trump, they didn't think it had enough to stand on its own, so they toss it out now.
This is not going away.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...isconduct.html
Her assertions would be much more believable if she wasn’t an active political figure and donator to those causes.
I’m not saying these things didn’t happen, but the timing of now airing it with no criminal charge reeks of swamp politics akin to Judge Bork’s character 30 years earlier.
McConnell bears much of the responsibility here to for precluding a vote on Garland’s nomination in 2016. The swamp is being, well..the swamp.
The timing is poor. It reeks. Folks here know I oppose this president. And I am concerned what kavanaugh on the bench means for America.
But I also believe in balance, fairness and equity. This late for the issue is troubling and hurts credibility.
I also think that any allegation of sexual assault must be taken seriously and investigated.
Here the statute of limitations is long past. If the woman is 100% accurate no rape occurred. Attempted rape did if 100% true.
There is some contemporaneous notes and discussion with a therapist that supports the incident of some sort that caused trauma did occur.
Taking the word of an alleged victim seriously is 8mportabnt. It has also not been taken seriously at times. The foundation of our law is that a person is innocent untilnil proven guilty.
On a personal note, we may not be all Christian but we all should embrace consent.
It smells contrived the way DiFi sat on a letter for months, then the alleged victim comes forward just a few days before the committee vote was to take place. The guy she claims was also present has denied having any memories of anything like that happening.
It won't go away b/c they need it to not go away so they can pray they hold off the vote and then retake the Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
That's all this is about, which is why this accusation from high school on a guy who has been on the bench many years and faced a previous Senate confirmation has this released months after the Democrats became aware of any of it.
It reeks of a political set up. Well actually re the timing there's no doubt whatsoever it's a political ploy and not a real attempt to address the issue. The only question is the veracity of her statements, but given her background and failure to address this in his previous confirmations it sure strongly smells of a setup.
He had 65 separate meetings ahead of these proceedings, including meeting with Feinstein, and she just now raises it and refers it to the FBI. So she believes a woman was raped, and sits on it for months before giving it to the FBI to investigate?
Seriously how do people like that look themselves in the mirror? This is the bottom of the Washington underbelly we're seeing play out now, b/c this is an "all costs" effort to stop seating another conservative on the bench.
FWIW the GOP would do the same thing, but that's another reason this is more politics than fact finding. Way more.
And they have an outside chance of getting the committee vote stopped, but even if not this is really about pressuring a couple of key swing votes on the Senate floor.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
What people forget is he's been on the bench for decades. This accuser seems pretty savvy and aware of what's going on, and if her statement is true and she was raped and it to this day has had a serious impact on her life then we're also to believe that as he moved up in the judiciary all the way to the job right under SCOTUS she never felt compelled to say or do anything, as he rendered 100s of opinions on a key federal court.
It's just not very easy to believe. Dozens and dozens of women have come out in his defense, from old girlfriends to coworkers, and nothing like this has come up after numerous background checks and White house nomination checks and Senate confirmations. But now one woman, who is an active member of the opposition, makes this claim at 11:59. It just doesn't pass the duck test.
Accuser's details of the event are shifting: https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/17/k...nstein-letter/
FWIW, I agree with the sentiments here.
The timing of this is a political ploy (whether true or not).
And the Republicans would have done the same type of thing. They used a different ploy with Garland and it worked.
This is where our politics have gone. And both parties are guilty as hell.
And Trump isn’t an “outsider” who is draining the swamp. To win the game you have to play the game. And he plays it as well as anyone.
Even his statement today was not “classic Trump”. It was as political as anyone else’s.
Her story is falling apart in places already. Despite this being a seriously traumatic incident for her per her statement, she apparently can't quite place the year, the house, the party, who else was there, etc.
She took and "passed" a polygraph test, but I know a fair amount about polygraphs, and I'm here to tell you the examiner can get any result he wants from one. There's a reason they are discredited for use in evidence, b/c they are deeply flawed. They work best when you're trying to break someone's story and it's just used as staging for a skilled interrogator. Hiring someone friendly to you is basically useless.
I'm not going to defend the GOP, but I will say the move to stop Garland was to procedurally simply not call a hearing. That's a long way from the politics of personal destruction. Garland wasn't smeared or attacked, the GOP has the Majority and thus the power to call or not call any confirmation hearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
that's just politics and there I agree, and if the shoe was on the other foot maybe the GOP does exactly this sort of thing, but what's going on with Kavanaugh is much more like the Clarence Thomas situation than Garland.
In fact if you look at it, Bork, Thomas and now Kavanaugh were the only 3 nominees attacked with this kind of politics of personal destruction, and all 3 were conservatives. None of the liberal nominees have had these kinds of things raised.
Maybe that means they were all clean and these guys weren't, but I find it more likely these are contrived political gambits to keep people off the bench.
In this case it's just too iffy to smell right. Kavanaugh has been on the bench more than a decade, with prior confirmations. Heck in this one he's had to answer over 1,200 questions and not once was this raised. Her story is very vague, is decades old, and she's an activist supporter of the opposition party who just hired an attorney who was the one who worked for the Clintons over one of his sexual scandals, Paula Jones. Debra Katz is a long time Democratic lawyer and Clinton camp who argued that Bill Clinton exposing himself to Paula Jones didn't even constitute a hostile work environment, much less a crime.
This is like Lanny Davis, long time Clinton fix-it man, being Cohen's attorney. Doesn't take a lot of intuition to see what's going on when your legal team are entrenched party activists. I seriously doubt she's paying the bills for them either.
When you step back far enough the pattern of the spider web emerges. This one just doesn't pass on any level so far.
here's a statement from her lawyer, Katz:
Likewise, in March 2017 Katz declared via Facebook that, "These people are all miscreants. The term ‘basket of deplorables’ is far too generous a description for these people who are now Senior Trump advisors," after a report surfaced that Department of Homeland Security advisor Frank Wuco made anti-Islamic remarks which prompted his resignation.
She also defended Al Franken in his harassment issues. So she's not some champion of women's rights, she's a party line lawyer who defends the party line. It suited to defend Clinton and Franken so she did, and now attack a conservative b/c that's the party line.
Now there are some less corrupt reasons one might pick her as a lawyer, but one of those is her knowing the political game in Washington, which is not fully reassuring ,and another is that you can get other people to pay the bills (like DNC donors) and while she may need the financial help in this process that's not exactly reassuring either from a corruption standpoint. She becomes like politicians, who claim to represent the people but have to still stay in line with the people writing the checks.
I'd take democrats seriously on this issue if they took the same stance with Henry Ellison
So now his accuser won't testify before the FBI does an investigation.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...r-lawyers.html
Odd considering she hasn't demanded an investigation for the last 35 years but now she wants an investigation before she speaks out.
Maybe she used Pitino's polygraph. His 2 question polygraph said he was truthful (LOL)Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
And her lawyer, a long time Democratic one as I mentioned, says there "is no rush". Uh, yeah, there is a rush, and you're goal is to delay.
Come on, this is smelling worse by the day. She sent the letter in July and it's late September and she's not ready to testify. Had Feinstein made it known in July we'd be long done one way or the other.
The fact they didn't present it then was two fold:
1) keep it from being investigated too deeply. They don't think they have much or they'd have let it out sooner. 11th hour surprises are usually more image than substance, that's why they are used that way. and
2) keep Trump from nominating someone else if it did work against Kavanaugh.
This looks more and more like dirty politics at its best versus a sincere concern over someone's behavior. That's why it was sandbagged. And as doc mentioned, why Ellison gets a pass and this becomes "concern for the victim". POlitics is one dirty business.
A third person she claims to have been present has come out and stated he has no recollection of any such event having taken place.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...nies-incident/
I am skeptical of her claims due to not knowing where she was and being vague about what year it occurred, I have seen 1982 and 1983 both being mentioned. I am about the age of Kavanaugh and can tell you times and places of fairly insignificant events when I was about that age. I can recall those dates better than something that has happened over the last 15 years, where I could be off by a year or so on fairly insignificant events.
It is all about trying to slow walk the Kavanaugh nomination in hopes that they could retake the Senate in the midterms and thus derail the nomination. Their chances of retaking the Senate are between slim and none, and the ploy could backfire on them by energizing the right to head to the polls and spur them to retain the House majority as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
I guarantee you if you were the victim of an attempted rape and you say it has impacted you to this day, you'd remember the year and day and the home where you went, etc. The only way you wouldn't is if it was so traumatic it was a PTSD issue, but that has not been claimed here at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
You don't want to dismiss any such claim out of hand, even though the Democrats are happy to do it repeatedly when it suits their purpose, but so far there is no trapping surrounding this that seems on the level. The timing, the manipulation of the release, her recollection, her political ties and motives, her legal team, now trying to delay testifying and calling for a FBI investigation that would take months, there's nothing here goes against the grain of this being a political maneuver. Everything is consistent so far with this being a political ploy.
The only thing in her corner is a polygraph, and I know enough to know those are just not reliable at all when the person in question picks the polygraphist and controls the test.
As Doc mentioned, Pitino "passed" a lie detector test as well. They are only useful when you are trying to break someone's story and going after them.
I agree. Only people who take this seriously as anything more than a delay tactic are hard line leftist who were never going to vote republican anyway. Most who are independents will see it for what it is and the disgust with it will spur them to vote for the GOP. Its ALWAYS been about not getting the SCOTUS justice that Trump wants. That was clear when they stated they were not going to vote for whomever was nominated before anybody was nominated.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
If I was sexually assaulted, I'd know what year it was and where it was. Hell, I remember when and where I lost my virginity....and that wasn't traumatic, or at least to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
An examiner can determine whether you pass a lie detector test based upon the questions you ask.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
The equipment measures the physiological response to the question, and people can be trained to manipulate their physiological response, especially if you know the questions before hand.
Here is an article on the topic: https://www.livescience.com/33512-pa...polygraph.html