The #MeToo Kavanaugh Ambush

[Optionpro007]

The year i am quite certain shes figured out. Just as many American already 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. That's the
\name of the event! 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 she had been in that location she'll only remember it as a home she won't 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!

Indeed. Mrs Victim here wants an FBI investigation on something that supposedly happened 36 years ago but she does not remember when it happened or where it happened - making it impossible to find witnesses to corroborate her story.

Should we just take her at her word? What is going to happen when someone comes at you and says you did something wrong in high school but they have no proof, witnesses, recollection of when and where? Should your career be over? Is that justice to you?

This really pisses me off. Burn the fucking witch!

 

[piezoe]

Indeed. Mrs Victim here wants an FBI investigation on something that supposedly happened 36 years ago but she does not remember when it happened or where it happened - making it impossible to find witnesses to corroborate her story.

Should we just take her at her word? What is going to happen when someone comes at you and says you did something wrong in high school but they have no proof, witnesses, recollection of when and where? Should your career be over? Is that justice to you?

This really pisses me off. Burn the fucking witch!

I'm pleased your not in the Senate. She won't remember the date necessarily, nor even necessarily the month, she'll recall the year, when she thinks some about it or resorts to something she has written down, and the season most likely. It was 36 years ago, you say. Would you expect here to remember the address, day of the week, year and time?. Just how much of that detail would you expect? (It's a rhetorical question, don't waste time answering.) But if she happened to know Bret Kavahaugh well when he was seventeen-year-old, she will never forget a drunk seventeen-year-old Bret Kavanaugh trying to pin her down and rip her clothes off.

 

[gwb-trading]

Third Witness Who Christine Ford Says Saw Brett Kavanaugh Sexually Assault Her Says It Never Happened
https://www.lifenews.com/2018/09/20...-sexually-assault-her-says-it-never-happened/

When California psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford made the allegations in a letter to pro-abortion Senator Diane Feinstein that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh supposedly sexually assaulted her, she said four people were allegedly at the party where it happened.

Ford made the allegations in a letter to pro-abortion Senator Diane Feinstein. The abortion activist held the letter since July from Ford detailing an alleged attack on her by Kavanaugh when they were in high school three decades ago. Suspiciously, Feinstein remained silent through the confirmation process and hearings until just days before a scheduled vote on his nomination.

Kavanaugh and alleged witness Mark Judge both said the sexual assault never took place. And now a third witness also says it never happened.

Now a third alleged attendee, another Kavanaugh high school classmate named Patrick J. Smyth, has provided a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee rebutting Ford’s story.

Now, Patrick J. Smyth, an individual who understands himself to be one of the alleged attendees of the alleged gathering, has provided a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee in which he–like Kavanaugh and Judge–denies Ford’s story.

The substance of this letter, written by Smyth’s lawyer Eric Bruce, was first reported by CNN on Wednesday morning. The Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed to CNSNews.com that it did in fact receive the letter on Tuesday evening.

The letter, as reported by CNN, included a statement from Smyth rebutting Ford’s alleged claim that he was at a gathering like the one she described to the Post.

As reported by CNN, the quotes from Smyth as cited in his lawyer’s letter to the Judiciary Committee, are as follows:

“I understand that I have been identified by Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post. … I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question, nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh toward women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the committee may have.”

(More at above url)

 

[gwb-trading]

Kavanaugh, too? Christine Blasey Ford's account is missing key details of assault
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...blasey-ford-sexual-assault-column/1346536002/

"Ford can’t remember the year the incident happened, she can’t remember how she got to the house party, or how she got home. She told no one about it at the time and the issue came to the forefront during a couples therapy session six years ago. Her therapist’s notes never mention Kavanaugh and actually mention four boys involved, although she says there were only two."

 

[Optionpro007]

I'm pleased your not in the Senate. She won't remember the date necessarily, nor even necessarily the month, she'll recall the year, when she thinks some about it or resorts to something she has written down, and the season most likely. It was 36 years ago, you say. Would you expect here to remember the address, day of the week, year and time?. Just how much of that detail would you expect? (It's a rhetorical question, don't waste time answering.) But if she happened to know Bret Kavahaugh well when he was seventeen-year-old, she will never forget a drunk seventeen-year-old Bret Kavanaugh trying to pin her down and rip her clothes off.

Keep drinking the koolaid foolish man.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

I'm pleased your not in the Senate. She won't remember the date necessarily, nor even necessarily the month, she'll recall the year, when she thinks some about it or resorts to something she has written down, and the season most likely. It was 36 years ago, you say. Would you expect here to remember the address, day of the week, year and time?. Just how much of that detail would you expect? (It's a rhetorical question, don't waste time answering.) But if she happened to know Bret Kavahaugh well when he was seventeen-year-old, she will never forget a drunk seventeen-year-old Bret Kavanaugh trying to pin her down and rip her clothes off.

What a liberty!

 

[CaptainObvious]

Kavanaugh, too? Christine Blasey Ford's account is missing key details of assault
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...blasey-ford-sexual-assault-column/1346536002/

"Ford can’t remember the year the incident happened, she can’t remember how she got to the house party, or how she got home. She told no one about it at the time and the issue came to the forefront during a couples therapy session six years ago. Her therapist’s notes never mention Kavanaugh and actually mention four boys involved, although she says there were only two."

She deserves to be heard is the battle cry. Fact is, she has been heard. There's nothing of legal substance to continue listening, and there's the rub. Now they, her supporters, want us to listen. Hearing is one thing, but listening requires something of substance to be said. All she has presented us with is a cloudy memory, devoid of evidence, accusation that can never be proven or disproven. No intelligent person would give this the time of day, but a political hack, oh yes, they'll give it plenty of time. It's the perfect tool to jam up the process. And here we are with gutless republicans bending over backwards trying the appease those who have demonstrated time and again that they will never, ever, never ever be content with anything the republicans present. They were against the nominee before they knew who the nominee was for christs sake. Why try to work with people like that? Ignore them, confirm and move on to the next thing they'll be outraged about.

 

[piezoe]

Third Witness Who Christine Ford Says Saw Brett Kavanaugh Sexually Assault Her Says It Never Happened
https://www.lifenews.com/2018/09/20...-sexually-assault-her-says-it-never-happened/

When California psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford made the allegations in a letter to pro-abortion Senator Diane Feinstein that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh supposedly sexually assaulted her, she said four people were allegedly at the party where it happened.


Ford made the allegations in a letter to pro-abortion Senator Diane Feinstein. The abortion activist held the letter since July from Ford detailing an alleged attack on her by Kavanaugh when they were in high school three decades ago. Suspiciously, Feinstein remained silent through the confirmation process and hearings until just days before a scheduled vote on his nomination.

Kavanaugh and alleged witness Mark Judge both said the sexual assault never took place. And now a third witness also says it never happened.

Now a third alleged attendee, another Kavanaugh high school classmate named Patrick J. Smyth, has provided a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee rebutting Ford’s story.

Now, Patrick J. Smyth, an individual who understands himself to be one of the alleged attendees of the alleged gathering, has provided a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee in which he–like Kavanaugh and Judge–denies Ford’s story.


The substance of this letter, written by Smyth’s lawyer Eric Bruce, was first reported by CNN on Wednesday morning. The Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed to CNSNews.com that it did in fact receive the letter on Tuesday evening.


The letter, as reported by CNN, included a statement from Smyth rebutting Ford’s alleged claim that he was at a gathering like the one she described to the Post.


As reported by CNN, the quotes from Smyth as cited in his lawyer’s letter to the Judiciary Committee, are as follows:


“I understand that I have been identified by Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post. … I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question, nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.


“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh toward women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the committee may have.”

(More at above url)

When I start to read something like this I stop reading in the first line.* Do you think it is worth reading? There might even be some unbiased factiual information being reported but the first line gives a person no confidence at all that anything can be trusted to be factual and not taken out of context to promote a particular viewpoint. So it's an editorial, which is fine, just like all, or the majority of our own posts here. But it is not a news report . My reaction to it is the same as my reaction to television adds promoting, or objecting to Kavanaugh. In my lifetime, I don't remember that kind of advertising promoting candidates for Justice of the Supreme Court, do you? We live in strange times. The kind of stuff stated in the editorials is the kind of stuff that without cross examination is completely worthless. How many people were in that Room with Ford and Kavanaugh anyway? I thought Ford had said just one other. So clearly someone is lying. Now, who is it? Are they going to lie under oath. Did the so-called witnesses say no sexual assault took place, or did they say they did not see any sexual assault take place. That's why we have courts, cross examination, and get to go to jail when we lie under oath.

____________
*The writer tipped their hand in the first line. Read it again if you didn't catch it the first time through. I guess my technical background has caused me to be a slow but vigilant reader.

 

[gwb-trading]

When I start to read something like this I stop reading in the first line. Do you think it is worth reading? There might even be some unbiased factiual information being reported but the first line gives a person no confidence at all that anything can be trusted to be factual and not taken out of context to promote a particular viewpoint. So it's an editorial, which is fine, just like all, or the majority of our own posts here. But it is not a news report . My reaction to it is the same as my reaction to television adds promoting, or objecting to Kavanaugh. In my lifetime, I don't remember that kind of advertising promoting candidates for Justice of the Supreme Court, do you? We live in strange times. The kind of stuff stated in the editorials is the kind of stuff that without cross examination is completely worthless. How many people were in that Room with Ford and Kavanaugh anyway? I thought Ford had said just one other. So clearly someone is lying. Now, who is it? Are they going to lie under oath. Did the so-called witnesses say no sexual assault took place, or did they say they did not see any sexual assault take place. That's why we have courts, cross examination, and get to go to jail when we lie under oath.

So you are just going to ignore that another person present at the party provided written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the incident did not occur. And then claim somehow this is not news.

 

[Optionpro007]

She deserves to be heard is the battle cry. Fact is, she has been heard. There's nothing of legal substance to continue listening, and there's the rub. Now they, her supporters want us to listen. Hearing is one thing, but listening requires something of substance to be said. All she has presented us with is a cloudy memory, devoid of evidence, accusation that can never be proven or disproven. No intelligent person would give this the time of day, but a political hack, oh yes, they'll give it plenty of time. It's the perfect tool to jam up the process. And here we are with gutless republicans bending over backwards trying the appease those who have demonstrated time and again that they will never, ever, never ever be content with anything the republicans present. They were against the nominee before they knew who the nominee was for christs sake. Why try to work with people like that. Ignore them, confirm and move on to the next thing they'll be outraged about.

Amen.