Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thelawlorfaithful

The Kavanaughcalypse!

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Looks like we lost a day. To nobody’s surprise, everything has gotten dumber.

Grassley asks for response by 5, then 10 Eastern. Without accepting by that time he schedules a vote for Monday. Deadline passes, Ford camp asks for another day to think about it. Grassley accedes and cancels the vote.

Dnq5yeTX0AAgz3Y?format=jpg

None of the accepted requests seem beyond the pale. If we’re going to do this though, Judge should probably be compelled to testify under oath, too. He’s allegedly the only other person in the room, and the only third party who could corroborate testimony of either Kavanaugh or Ford. 

Do you know if there will be any witness called to testify?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NVGiant said:

None of the accepted requests seem beyond the pale. If we’re going to do this though, Judge should probably be compelled to testify under oath, too. He’s allegedly the only other person in the room, and the only third party who could corroborate testimony of either Kavanaugh or Ford. 

Do you know if there will be any witness called to testify?

Not that I’ve heard, though I believe they are conducting interviews with everyone they can. Under oath or not, it is a felony to lie to congress.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

None of the accepted requests seem beyond the pale. If we’re going to do this though, Judge should probably be compelled to testify under oath, too. He’s allegedly the only other person in the room, and the only third party who could corroborate testimony of either Kavanaugh or Ford. 

Do you know if there will be any witness called to testify?

 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’m sorry, but I find this whole “I have a story to tell but will only do so if x,y, and z demands are met” stuff to be incredibly obnoxious. 

I’m not surprised you feel that way. But if she really was a victim of a sexual assault the fact that she is very uncomfortable about the circumstances of her looming testimony is not surprising at all, particularly given the legacy of Anta Hill’s treatment and the fact that she’s moved out of her house due to death threats. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2018 at 1:09 PM, pokebball said:

From Fox

The California professor said she was reluctant to come forward and did so only because her hand was forced by the media. She wrote a letter outlining her allegations in July to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., but Feinstein did not mention them to other senators or federal investigators until last week.

I also want to know who leaked the letter Ford sent to Feinstein.  The leak forced Ford's hand. Shame on the leaker.  It wasn't their decision, it was Fords.

Yes I know, the alleged incident happened while they were both minor so I'm not sure the technicalities. For instance, if I go into my manager and allege abuse, then tell him I don't want him to say anything to anybody, he can't really do that. He has to immediately report through the proper channels and follow procedures after that. In some respects, DiFi I was in a place of responsibility, she should have done something about it right away.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NVGiant said:

None of the accepted requests seem beyond the pale. If we’re going to do this though, Judge should probably be compelled to testify under oath, too. He’s allegedly the only other person in the room, and the only third party who could corroborate testimony of either Kavanaugh or Ford. 

Do you know if there will be any witness called to testify?

I've given it further thought and this occurred to me. By his own admission, Judge was once a raging alcoholic. Among the 12 Steps as I understand them involves a complete turnaround from the lying and deceptiveness that inevitably comes from such significant substance abuse. I've been trying to figure out why Judge would so abjectly "refuse" (the word that's been used) to testify before the committee. So I wonder whether the reason might be that he actually does recall a bedroom event with Kavanaugh and "Chrissie" and doesn't want to endanger his sobriety by having to disclose the "whole" truth of what he recalls.

BTW, as I've implied, the perjury issue is now irrelevant as a crime since nobody is ever even tried for it anymore much less convicted of it. In my view, that's just another example of this country's morals no longer being what they once were or should be.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

I've given it further thought and this occurred to me. By his own admission, Judge was once a raging alcoholic. Among the 12 Steps as I understand them involves a complete turnaround from the lying and deceptiveness that inevitably comes from such significant substance abuse. I've been trying to figure out why Judge would so abjectly "refuse" (the word that's been used) to testify before the committee. So I wonder whether the reason might be that he actually does recall a bedroom event with Kavanaugh and "Chrissie" and doesn't want to endanger his sobriety by having to disclose the "whole" truth of what he recalls.

BTW, as I've implied, the perjury issue is now irrelevant as a crime since nobody is ever even tried for it anymore much less convicted of it. In my view, that's just another example of this country's morals no longer being what they once were or should be.

That’s a stretch IMO...  besides, it appears they already obtained from him a “statement under penalty of felony”.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, ultimately I ask will anything really change with the regards of the accusations?

I don't see Ford changing her story, I don't see Kavanaugh changing his story. Both sides can present evidence but I don't see either side changing their story, the holes to the story could still be there but again will the hearing change anyone's view on the what might have happened?

As a senator I think said, if you believe Ford vote against Kavanaugh if you believe Kavanaugh vote for him. 

You could show Ford to be a bold faced liar but at the end of the day does anything really change? People that are supporting her will continue to support her and go against Kavanaugh no matter what happens, people for Kavanaugh will continue to support him against Ford no matter what happens.

And the thing with witnesses is that people forget things or sometimes their memory changes over time with events. That is why investigators usually want some evidence other than just people testifying even under oath.

Perjury really, according to most prosecutors, is hard to prosecute because you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the person lied under oath. Misremembering, or can't remember exact details don't count under that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/politics/kavanaugh-ford-accuser-nomination/index.html

CNN has learned that the committee has reached out to a longtime friend of Ford named Leland Ingham Keyser.

"I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article," a committee staffer wrote Keyser earlier this week. 

On Saturday night, her lawyer, Howard Walsh, released a statement to CNN and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Simply put," Walsh said, "Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford."

The lawyer acknowledged to CNN that Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford's.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/politics/kavanaugh-ford-accuser-nomination/index.html

CNN has learned that the committee has reached out to a longtime friend of Ford named Leland Ingham Keyser.

"I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article," a committee staffer wrote Keyser earlier this week. 

On Saturday night, her lawyer, Howard Walsh, released a statement to CNN and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Simply put," Walsh said, "Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford."

The lawyer acknowledged to CNN that Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford's.

So it’s what now...  the word of 68 to 1???  

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dnv4EIuWsAo-6cU?format=jpg

Ford told the Washington Post there were four boys at the party, that her therapist’s notes were wrong describing an attack by four boys. The girl was said to be there when Katz gave a CNN interview.

There should still be one more witness to go, right?

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Dnv4EIuWsAo-6cU?format=jpg

Ford told the Washington Post there were four boys at the party, that her therapist’s notes were wrong describing an attack by four boys. The girl was said to be there when Katz gave a CNN interview.

There should still be one more witness to go, right?

I’m sure the libs on the board will take offense and be outraged at my opinion here, but the more information and statements come out, the more I move toward believing this is a complete fabrication. 

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She claims she wanted to remain anonymous, yet had time with Democrat links to clean up the internet, we know next to nothing about her.  A talk show host was claiming websites that rank professors had been cleansed, apparently, students don't like her as a professor.  She has ties to Soros funding.  She has zero support or corroboration from her friends and acquaintances from the time, even from the ones she names.  She wants K to testify first which is bullshit.  Numerous inconsistencies.  Can't name the place, the party, the approximate timeframe, and the few she names, can't even recollect the party / occasion.  ONE BIG FAIL.  The Bay Area media is reporting she has support from current campus staff, students, and acquaintances.    

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’m sure the libs on the board will take offense and be outraged at my opinion here, but the more information and statements come out, the more I move toward believing this is a complete fabrication. 

A hail mary fabrication

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...