The #MeToo Kavanaugh Ambush

Buy1Sell2 said:
I fully endorse these tweets. One must understand that for years we have wanted someone to fight back against the radical Left. We now have somebody like that and we want to complain about the wording of his defenses. You'll notice that Mr Trump does not typically initiate attacks------but he responds to attacks. ---Make no mistake---when Kavanaugh is attacked, it is really an attack on Trump. He HAS to respond.
More...

I disagree. I think Trump's tweets on this issue hurts Kavanaugh's chances of confirmation.
 
Kavanaugh’s Accuser Is Doing Everything She Can To Avoid Testifying
By BEN SHAPIRO

First, the Democrats claimed that Republicans didn’t want to hear from the accuser of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Then when Republicans said they’d love to hear from her, and would she please show up and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrats suggested that such a request was sexist and cruel — that no hearing could be held without an FBI investigation. Now, in an attempt to look forthcoming without actually coming forth with any credible information, the accuser’s lawyers are playing games with the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On Thursday night, lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford outlined a series of demands from the Senate Judiciary Committee in order for Ford to testify under oath. Let it first be said that Kavanaugh has denied all charges and will testify on Monday under oath; if he’s found to be lying, he’ll go to jail for perjury. So this is no game to Kavanaugh.

But it’s a game for Ford’s lawyers. Here were just a few of their demands:

  1. No outside counsel questions her;
  2. The defense testifies first;
  3. Subpoena against Mark Judge.
The subpoena against Judge doesn’t seem unreasonable — she alleges he was there. The other two conditions are fully unreasonable. Kavanaugh won’t have the ability to confront his accuser; not only that, she wants to reverse the entire criminal procedure process by having the defense testify without ever hearing the actual claims against him. That’s insane. Finally, prohibiting outside counsel from asking questions is a way of promoting grandstanding by senators, not of reaching the truth. If Kavanaugh can’t ask questions, why should Republicans have to be his lawyers, rather than an actual lawyer for Kavanaugh?

It should be noted that those who are asked to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee generally don’t get to negotiate the terms of their testimony. The Senate Judiciary Committee does indeed have subpoena power. But Ford and her lawyers are obviously making the most of charges of insensitivity to tilt the playing field in her direction, or to avoid having to testify at all. That does undermine her credibility.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36155/kavanaughs-accuser-doing-everything-she-can-avoid-ben-shapiro
 
Lets all walk on egg shells from puberty and on. Cuck nation.
bad.jpg
 
If the parties were reversed, democrat low lifes like Ricki Seidman would be lining up guys to say that Ford was a drunken slut in high school. Their surrogates on late night TV and the media would be sliming her as a nutcase opportunist probably getting paid off by right wing gun lobbyists.

Republican cucks by contrast immediately swallow the ridiculous initial premise, that an isolated incident from 35 years ago involving spoiled teens and booze is disqualifying, and then have bent over backward to try to help her prove it. This may not derail Kavanaugh but a precedent has been set, at least for republican nominees, that will undoubtedly trip up some future Kavanaugh.
 
Poindexter said:
The #MeToo Kavanaugh Ambush
A story this old and unprovable can’t be allowed to delay a Supreme Court confirmation vote.

By The Editorial Board
Updated Sept. 17, 2018 7:47 p.m. ET

The woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of a drunken assault when both were teenagers has now come forward publicly, and on Monday it caused Republicans to delay a confirmation vote and schedule another public hearing. Yet there is no way to confirm her story after 36 years, and to let it stop Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation would ratify what has all the earmarks of a calculated political ambush.

This is not to say Christine Blasey Ford isn’t sincere in what she remembers. In an interview published in the Washington Post on Sunday, Ms. Ford offered a few more details of the story she told anonymously starting in July. She says she was 15 when Mr. Kavanaugh, who would have been 17, and a male friend pushed her into a bedroom at a drinking party, held her down, and pawed her until the male friend jumped on them both and she escaped to a bathroom until the two boys left the room.

Mr. Kavanaugh denies all this “categorically and unequivocally,” and there is simply no way to prove it. The only witness to the event is Mr. Kavanaugh’s high school male friend, Mark Judge, who also says he recalls no such event. Ms. Ford concedes she told no one about it—not even a high school girl friend or family member—until 2012 when she told the story as part of couples therapy with her husband.

The vagaries of memory are well known, all the more so when they emerge in the cauldron of a therapy session to rescue a marriage. Experts know that human beings can come to believe firmly over the years that something happened when it never did or is based on partial truth. Mistaken identity is also possible.

The Post reports that the therapist’s notes from 2012 say there were four male assailants, but Ms. Ford says that was a mistake. Ms. Ford also can’t recall in whose home the alleged assault took place, how she got there, or how she got home that evening.

This is simply too distant and uncorroborated a story to warrant a new hearing or to delay a vote. We’ve heard from all three principals, and there are no other witnesses to call. Democrats will use Monday’s hearing as a political spectacle to coax Mr. Kavanaugh into looking defensive or angry, and to portray Republicans as anti-women. Odds are it will be a circus.

The timing and details of how Ms. Ford came forward, and how her name was coaxed into public view, should also raise red flags about the partisan motives at play. The Post says Ms. Ford contacted the paper via a tip line in July but wanted to remain anonymous. She then brought her story to a Democratic official while still hoping to stay anonymous.

Yet she also then retained a lawyer, Debra Katz, who has a history of Democratic activism and spoke in public defense of Bill Clinton against the accusations by Paula Jones. Ms. Katz urged Ms. Ford to take a polygraph test. The Post says she passed the polygraph, though a polygraph merely shows that she believes the story she is telling.

The more relevant question is why go to such lengths if Ms. Ford really wanted her name to stay a secret? Even this weekend she could have chosen to remain anonymous. These are the actions of someone who was prepared to go public from the beginning if she had to.

The role of Senator Dianne Feinstein is also highly irregular and transparently political. The ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee knew about Ms. Ford’s accusations in late July or early August yet kept quiet. If she took it seriously, she had multiple opportunities to ask Judge Kavanaugh or have committee staff interview the principals. But in that event the details would have been vetted and Senators would have had time to assess their credibility.

Instead Ms. Feinstein waited until the day before a committee markup on the nomination to release a statement that she had “information” about the accusation and had sent it to the FBI. Her statement was a political stunt.

She was seeking to insulate herself from liberal charges that she sat on the letter. Or—and this seems increasingly likely given the course of events—Senator Feinstein was holding the story to spring at the last minute in the hope that events would play out as they have. Surely she knew that once word of the accusation was public, the press would pursue the story and Ms. Ford would be identified by name one way or another.

Democrats waited until Ms. Ford went public to make public statements. But clearly some were feeding the names of Ms. Ford and her lawyer to the press, and now they are piling on what they hope will be an election-eve #MeToo conflagration.

“Senator Grassley must postpone the vote until, at a very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated,” declared Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Sunday. “For too long, when women have made serious allegations of abuse, they have been ignored. That cannot happen in this case.”

His obvious political goal is to delay the confirmation vote past the election, fan the #MeToo political furies until then, and hope that at least two GOP Senators wilt under political pressure. If Republican Senators Jeff Flake and Bob Corker think a hearing will satisfy Mr. Schumer, they are right to retire from politics.

GOP Senators should understand that the political cost of defeating Mr. Kavanaugh will likely include the loss of the Senate. Democrats are already motivated to vote against Donald Trump, and if Republicans panic now their own voters will rightly be furious. They would be letting Democrats get away with the same dirty trick they tried and failed to pull off against Clarence Thomas.

It would also be a serious injustice to a man who has by all accounts other than Ms. Ford’s led a life of respect for women and the law. Every #MeToo miscreant is a repeat offender. The accusation against Mr. Kavanaugh is behavior manifested nowhere else in his life.

No one, including Donald Trump, needs to attack Ms. Ford. She believes what she believes. This is not he said-she said. This is a case of an alleged teenage encounter, partially recalled 30 years later without corroboration, and brought forward to ruin Mr. Kavanaugh’s reputation for partisan purposes.

Letting an accusation that is this old, this unsubstantiated and this procedurally irregular defeat Mr. Kavanaugh would also mean weaponizing every sexual assault allegation no matter the evidence. It will tarnish the #MeToo cause with the smear of partisanship, and it will unleash even greater polarizing furies.

Appeared in the September 18, 2018, print edition.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-metoo-kavanaugh-ambush-1537197395?mod=e2two
More...
There are two things about this account that are not quite accurate, but in fairness the writer of this story may have written before additional information came available. Although there isn't yet direct corroboration from a witness, we have learned that the alleged victim did recount the event to others while it was much fresher in her memory than a 30 year lapse would suggest. And the reason Senator Feinstein did not come forward is now known. She was acting at the request of the victim, who at the time was uncertain whether she wanted to go public with her accusation.

Since the article was written, much has come out about the behavior and teen boy culture at Georgetown Prep at the time of the alleged incident that would bolster the veracity of the victims account.

Personally, I am certain Kavanaugh today is not the same person he was as a seventeen year old, but I am concerned that the few ways in which he hasn't changed may be the ones where change is most needed. Although Maryland has no statute of limitations for some sexual offenses, it seems too late to pursue that avenue. Nevertheless, I am inclined to believe the victim.

So what bothers me here is the possibility that Kavanaugh is flat out lying. But I have to allow for the possibility that either he was so drunk that his memory was dimmed --he isn't then lying as I define it -- or that his virtue was so easy that there was nothing remarkable that would cause him to remember the incident. Or perhaps he is innocent, and the victim is lying, or it is a case of mistaken identity. I am inclined to believe he is lying.

What makes me think that? It is a combination of the facts known so far about the incident and his character as revealed by his known record. I am referring specifically to a record of taking advantage of opportunity; his easy switch in stance on Presidential prerogatives between the time he worked with Ken Starr and the time he was trying to help G.W. Bush and R. Cheney justify their stance on torture. Bush and Cheney, Cheney in particular, tried to escape condemnation by redefining torture as something else, whereas Mr. Kavanaugh, on their behalf, looked for legal loopholes. There being none, he invented one, one that had its genesis in newly conceived presidential prerogatives. Mr. Kavanaugh's was remarkably pliability. He went well beyond giving legal advice drawn from case law all the way to the invention of entirely new, and radical interpretations of U.S. law and the Constitution. This suggests a certain opportunism quite unbecoming a candidate for the highest court. I hope he will be passed over for someone of firmer moral and ethical conviction.
 
Last edited:
AAAintheBeltway said:
If the parties were reversed, democrat low lifes like Ricki Seidman would be lining up guys to say that Ford was a drunken slut in high school. Their surrogates on late night TV and the media would be sliming her as a nutcase opportunist probably getting paid off by right wing gun lobbyists.

Republican cucks by contrast immediately swallow the ridiculous initial premise, that an isolated incident from 35 years ago involving spoiled teens and booze is disqualifying, and then have bent over backward to try to help her prove it. This may not derail Kavanaugh but a precedent has been set, at least for republican nominees, that will undoubtedly trip up some future Kavanaugh.
More...
Post of the day. The media machine would be in full character assassination mode while the women of the left would be talking about vast right wing conspiracies.
 
piezoe said:
Nevertheless, I am inclined to believe the victim
More...

Do you remember where you were on 9-11 and what you were doing? Most likely. EVERYONE remembers tragic events, including rape or anything similar as they leave an indelible memory in the brain.

But this 'victim' does not remember the year or place of the 'incident'. And you believe her.
 
Of course I believe her. She hasn't claimed anything that is not believable and she has lots of reasons to not get involved and no reason or motive for making her story up. There is no reason to think she is mentally unbalanced. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, has a very strong reason to lie. (In my opinion, if he knows he is guilty, he is using very poor judgement in the way he is handling this situation. It is too late now however for him to change course.)

The year, i am quite certain shes figured out. Just as many Americans have to stop and think about what year the 9/11 attack took place in. They never forget, however, 9/11 for an obvious reason. They will remember where they were unless they just happened to be in a location they didn't normally frequent, then they'll just remember they were in a gas station, or in a shopping center or a grocery store, they were driving to work, or what not. Apparently the alleged incident took place at a party in a home. If it was the first and only time, or one of a handful of times, she had been in that location she'll only remember it as a home she won't necessarily remember the exact address, unless she's made a point of remembering it. You'll have to revise your thinking if I am on the jury and your the counsel for the defendant!

But this incident alone is not why I wouldn't vote to confirm him were I on the Senate committee. Fortunately for you, I'm not. See my post#67 for my reasons why I don't think he should be confirmed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top