Then why didn't DiFi turn this over to the FBI in July? She instead turns it over to the media! This is BS and you know it. After all of the confirmation hearings, the dems spring this, through the media when the vote should be happening? C'mon Man!
OT: Anyone watching Christine Blasey Ford?
- Thread starter amynhop
- Start date
Then why didn't DiFi turn this over to the FBI in July? She instead turns it over to the media! This is BS and you know it. After all of the confirmation hearings, the dems spring this, through the media when the vote should be happening? C'mon Man!
I don't give a rats ass if the timing was political. This was Dr. Ford's one chance for justice and if she timed it to inflict the most damage possible to the person who tried to rape her, good for her.
If this was all fake and it was sooooooo easy to levy false allegations at nominees it makes no sense that Democrats wouldn't have done it dozens of times in the past.
You keep changing what you're arguing against. Is the whole thing fake but somehow it's the first time it's been attempted or was the timing just political?
1) This is true; not because allegations are not important, but because of the methods used by the dems to bring them up. Makes the whole process shady; especially when many of the substantiating claims by the accuser have already been proven false. She admittedly can't remember key elements. Two men have come forth and spoken to Senate investigators that they, themselves might be the perpetrators in question.
2) Not sure I understand your premise.
2) was your premise. You said that democrats didn't attempt to torpedo Gorsuch's nomination because the stakes weren't high enough.
If they didn't do it for Gorsuch because the stakes weren't high enough, why would they do it for similarly "low stakes" nominations in the future? What's there to worry about?
Edit: Also, give the self-proclaimed-attempted-rapists a subpoena and have them testify! Have Judge testify as well! I find it peculiar that the committee doesn't want to hear from them in person.
I have no clue why allegations have not been made before. How will anyone ever know if the allegations are true if only two people were there and there is no proof?
Agree with the former. Don't agree with the latter.
She sent the letter before Kavanaugh was even nominated.
The FBI has already stated this is not their jurisdiction, that's why. The Democrats are taking a huge gamble here, and it appears that the pendulum is swinging back towards the R's in the midterms because of this set of shenanigans.
So when trying to determine the veracity of the accuser and defendant, there isn’t a need to question an accomplice?
Since when is that a thing?
The whole thing is politicized. Ford initially did not even want her name injected into any of this! The dems forced her into it and have cajoled, coaxed and coached her through the process. She just admitted that she doesn't even know who paid for her polygraph. The dems know what they're doing and they do it well. The dems have no real interest in Ford other than keeping Kav from getting voted in, if so, they would pay more attention to Keith Ellison's accuser, no? Should he not recuse himself from the Committee since allegations are important?
This allegation is 36 years old. Kav has been through 6 FBI background checks. This woman has NO corroborating evidence. You tell me, should this keep him from being confirmed?
The repubs have not kept the FBI from investigating. The FBI themselves have said there is nothing to investigate. She doesn't even know exactly when and where it happened, nor does she really know anyone else who was at the party. Where would the investigation start?
Yes.
Edit: Provided Kavanaugh doesn't come out with some really compelling testimony. As it stands I believe Ford.
It doesn't seem like it would have been hard to have him do it in public just like Ford has done and Kavanaugh is about to. That way it's apples to apples.
This is not a "low stakes" nomination. This nomination will swing the court to a conservative court. Kennedy was swing vote that could and would go either way.
And you haven't even heard his testimony yet!!! Well now. At least we all know where you're coming from!
I'm going to distill this again to the two points you have made.
1) The reason Democrats have smeared Kavanaugh and not any other nominees is because this is the only nominee significant enough to do it for.
2) This is a dangerous precedent and all future nominees will be similarly smeared.
2 doesn't make any sense if 1 is true.
Edit: SO it doesn't matter to you that the 4 people she named as being present; 2 guys and 2 girls, all say they have no idea what she's talking about.
I provided an edit to my post shortly after making it (and before you made your post). I concede that Kavanaugh could have some very powerful testimony. I'm sorry that you don't have your "gothca" moment.
not sure I am following.. There were supposedly 3 people in the room. 2 have said it did not happen. 1 said it did. There is no proof so its going to be a case of he said she said.. Not nearly enough to convict anywhere
I feel like this should be said to you. There is zero proof this happened and she is the only one saying it did. She is saying it at an extremely convenient time as well.
I never claimed 2. I said no further appointees for THIS seat could expect any less treatment from the dems. Also, who would want to be appointed if they know they could be treated as such? It's a dangerous game the dems play, but they have a win at all cost mentality.
You're right, it'd be extremely difficult to criminally convict the man of anything. What we have is very compelling testimony from a credible witness and several other people who have made allegations that fit in to a pattern of behavior. We also know that Kavanaugh is liar (perhaps not about this but for sure about several other issues). This is a lifetime appointment to an extraordinarily prestigious and import position. We as a country deserve better than Brett Kavanaugh (assuming his testimony isn't out of this world good).
What! What other allegations and how do know he's a liar? You really think that if he fit a "pattern" of behavior the FBI wouldn't already know it?
EDIT: Also, she just testified that can't remember how she got to the party nor how she left. A party that no one else remembers.
It is 100% accurate. Sen. Whitehouse (Democrat) even stated this during a TV interview.
Also, if you think you've established a pattern of behavior for the accused, then shouldn't we also look at the pattern of behavior for her life as well?
holy crap, it cant help Kavenaugh that he is coming off like an angry drunk in his opening statement.
That is not true and more partisan bullshit. 14 presidents have appointed 21 justices. 6 were done so after president elect was already elected.
No? The only thing that matters for her is whether or not she's telling the truth. She's not interviewing for a job right now.
It's called "The Biden Rule" Joe Biden made a speech in '92, I think, warning Daddy Bush about appointing a judge during the lame duck, presidential election year.
In '95, Biden gave the same speech again. The original idea for this came from Sen. Byrd, I think. Of course, the dems only want to employ this stuff when it benefits them.
https://pjmedia.com/blog/biden-also-gave-biden-rule-speech-in-2005-reid-podesta-were-all-for-it/
Her telling the truth about what? That she's afraid to fly(?), that 4-5 other people were present(?) or the date she met with Rep. Eshoo? I imagine the fact that she lied about these things has no bearing on anything else she's saying.
All these made up accusations crying wolf will end saturating the actual instances in the long run. It's become a too convenient tool.
I know what you are referring to. The Repubs vehemently objected to it as well. It is rule of convenience used by the party in power. You know this but you are locked into party tribalism. whataboutism. over the 200 years of our country it has not been rule. it has become weapon in modern political tribalism.
Similar threads
