The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Ptarmigan on September 16, 2018, 09:17:22 PM
-
Allegations throw Kavanaugh confirmation into turmoil
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/406938-allegations-throw-kavanaugh-confirmation-into-turmoil
Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination was plunged into chaos after a woman accusing him of sexual assault spoke publicly for the first time about the allegation on Sunday.
The fallout from the decades-old allegation is putting a spotlight on Senate Republicans, who must decide if they want to rush forward with Kavanaugh’s nomination with questions lingering over the Senate’s debate and vote.
Republicans have been confident for months that Kavanaugh would be confirmed by October, when the court starts its next term. But they are under intense pressure to delay a vote after Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, told The Washington Post that in high school in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed at a party and forced himself on her.
The accuser is Christine Blasey Ford.
Christine Blasey Ford: Woman Who Accused Kavanaugh in Letter Comes Forward
https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford/
Christine Blasey Ford’s Politics: She’s a Democrat
https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-politics-democrat/
-
Chaos? Hardly. Another nothing burger for the media & other insane unhinged libs to obsess over until Kavanaugh is certainly going to be confirmed.
-
Actual adult rape didn't bother them with Clinton, DUI manslaughter didn't bother them with Fat Teddy, and they turn a blind eye to the recent sexual misconduct of their own members (From trips to pedo-paradises using tax money to settle their own sexual harassment cases), so screw those A-holes.
FWIW I think she is probably telling it the way she remembers it and he is too (Or in the case of a drunk-on-his-ass 17-year-old, the way he doesn't remember a damn' thing about it). I don't think either one of those things is what actually happened.
-
Always prepared for the unanticipated, I'm left wondering about something.
Suppose Ruth Bader Ginsberg springs loose of this mortal coil while the Kavanaugh nomination (for another seat, not hers) is still uncompleted.
Not that I wish her to die, but she is after all 85 years old and infirm, not a promising prospect for life insurance companies.
Remember franksolich's First Rule of Everything: anything can happen, and usually does.
-
The choreography of this is too obvious. The Ds and their media shills have done this shtick repeatedly:
* Clarence Thomas and the Anita Hill Game
* Getting Herman Cain to drop out with an accuser who suddenly disappeared whgen he did;
* The HilLIARy-paid Steele Dossier's crazy Pee Tape claim;
* And now a Psychology prof at a small private university that operates in the shadow of and works in consortium with Stanford University.
The Rs should ignore the shtick and move ahead with the scheduled votes, plus or minus saying that the Ds and MSM have played this card too often. Not that I think more than a couple of Rs have the courage to say that.
-
The choreography of this is too obvious. The Ds and their media shills have done this shtick repeatedly:
* Clarence Thomas and the Anita Hill Game
* Getting Herman Cain to drop out with an accuser who suddenly disappeared whgen he did;
* The HilLIARy-paid Steele Dossier's crazy Pee Tape claim;
* And now a Psychology prof at a small private university that operates in the shadow of and works in consortium with Stanford University.
The Rs should ignore the shtick and move ahead with the scheduled votes, plus or minus saying that the Ds and MSM have played this card too often. Not that I think more than a couple of Rs have the courage to say that.
Exactly, if this kills his nomination, there will never be another conservative confirmed ever because every one of them will have some "accuser" come forward with an unprovable allegation from 30 years ago. Why was this not brought up during the hearings? Because it's meant to be an eleventh hour surprise to delay or destroy the nomination.
-
Actual adult rape didn't bother them with Clinton, DUI manslaughter didn't bother them with Fat Teddy, and they turn a blind eye to the recent sexual misconduct of their own members (From trips to pedo-paradises using tax money to settle their own sexual harassment cases), so screw those A-holes.
FWIW I think she is probably telling it the way she remembers it and he is too (Or in the case of a drunk-on-his-ass 17-year-old, the way he doesn't remember a damn' thing about it). I don't think either one of those things is what actually happened.
It's kinda frightening to me how far back the Dems are willing to go in order to smear and or derail a Republican nominee.
Pretty soon a nominee will be required to answer under oath for the time in Kindergarten when they pinched little Susie on the arm and made her cry.
-
It's kinda frightening to me how far back the Dems are willing to go in order to smear and or derail a Republican nominee.
Pretty soon a nominee will be required to answer under oath for the time in Kindergarten when they pinched little Susie on the arm and made her cry.
Yeah, dipping little Susie's pigtails in an inkwell won't work anymore.
-
Meanwhile absolute radio silence on the credible claims against Keith Ellison.
-
This should take you to case info about the foreclosure case I posted in the Shoutbox. (http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=156006V&loc=68&detailLoc=MCCI) If clicking the link does not take you directly to the case info, click the button to reply to this post by including a Quote, and copy the url. That full url should take you to the case info.
-
I would give the democrat party a nod for having the higher ground on this matter if the letter was brought out when they first received it. To wait until days before the confirmation vote and after all of their other childish tactics failed is pure theatrics on their side.
-
Meanwhile absolute radio silence on the credible claims against Keith Ellison.
Except for the right leaning hosts. Caught a bit of Bill Cunningham's show last night and he mentioned that perv Ellison about six times. Especially that the incidents happened in the past year with credible evidence.
-
Except for the right leaning hosts. Caught a bit of Bill Cunningham's show last night and he mentioned that perv Ellison about six times. Especially that the incidents happened in the past year with credible evidence.
That's a good start...but I'm curious as to why a big news outlet like Fox isn't bringing it up to highlight the hypocrisy of the Dems.
They used to do that.
-
From a WashPost article: (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html)
Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s ...
She graduated in 1984, so "early 80s" could mean 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, or 1984. She's not even naming the year, let alone enough details to check whether Kavanaugh was in Maryland (or in the US, or North America!) at the time or knew the person whose party was the supposed location of the alleged incident. Everything about this screams choreography and prevention of fact-checking.
-
From a WashPost article: (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html)
She graduated in 1984, so "early 80s" could mean 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, or 1984. She's not even naming the year, let alone enough details to check whether Kavanaugh was in Maryland (or in the US, or North America!) at the time or knew the person whose party was the supposed location of the alleged incident. Everything about this screams choreography and prevention of fact-checking.
It's almost hysterically funny that the Dems can't even come up with a different mode d'emploi. They're stuck on the bullshit #MeToo angle.
Has anyone else fallen asleep at this garbage?
-
“These are all the ills that I was trying to avoid,” she said, explaining her decision to come forward. “Now I feel like my civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and terror about retaliation.”
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
What a complete line of BS......
-
Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s ...
(https://i.imgflip.com/1u8e00.jpg)
-
I think they want to give this to a special council to spend the next 2 years investigating. They can hire 100 big donor dem lawyers at $1,000.00 an hour to work on it. :mental: :thatsright: :loser:
The republicans need to throw out some dirt on a few dirty dems to get some smoke going in their camp as well.
-
The republicans need to throw out some dirt on a few dirty dems to get some smoke going in their camp as well.
I have every reason to suspect that President Trump will do exactly that.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hkr6jBc7/444444444444444444444444444.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/LJMtbkVH)
-
So I'm gathering that this whole pile of crap is supposed to be based on a 'Recovered suppressed memory' brought out in her therapy, which is supposed to be why she didn't say squat about it at all for 25 years or so. And that she passed a contracted polygraph on it is supposed to matter.
First, that 'Recovered memory' stuff is useless garbage unless there is some physical evidence to show it isn't. The human mind can fill in all the blanks, including the entire plot of the story, when a psych starts dredging for shit, it may be all or partly real, it may be remembered pieces of dream or unrelated assembled to complete the story the therapist is demanding, and if only part of it is fact-based the mind is great at making up or assembling stray bits to tell the tale until the examiner is happy. Once the whole thing gels in the mind, the mind accepts it as fact, whether it really happened, or really happened 'As recovered' (Or at all) or not. And this BS is brought to you by the same forensic psychiatric community that will line up to testify that eye-witness identification based on current memory isn't worth squat (For an expert witness fee, of course).
Second, polygraphs:
A. They're useless for determining objective facts. Even under the best circumstances, all they do is determine whether the examinee is being intentionally deceptive if the examinee has typical stress reactions. They don't work at all on people who just have the facts wrong, are good liars, are crazy, or believe what they're saying.
B. The value of a poly is as an interrogation tool. The exam itself is only about ten or twelve questions, a third are calibration questions about objecive facts like birthdate and name, to get a 'Truth' baseline reading. A third are unimportant odd crap just to try to break up any attempt to fox the exam by staying tense through the whole thing. Only a third - three or four questions - are the 'Relevant' questions. The entire process only works if there are some hours of skeptical interrogation beforehand to wear down any plan of deception and bring the stress to a crescendo. After that, its real value comes in hours of interrogation afterwards, when the interrogator uses the poly results to work on any chinks in the story. Even with all those conditions being met, it isn't reliable as evidence, because some people can still fox it, and it still doesn't prove any objective facts, just the examinee's beliefs (At best). Used that way, it's great for busting a suspect's BS story and getting them to cough up the real one, but that's about it.
C. Contracted polys or 'Friendly' ones, aren't adverse and don't involve the hours of prep or follow-up interrogation. They're usually done by retired poly examiners from law enforcement agencies (ed, State, or local). They examiners aren't dishonest, but they'll be the first to admit that someone paying for 15 minutes of exam and a written report is not getting anything like the same conditions as a 'Person of interest' in a custodial interrogation, partly because an adverse atmosphere is part of what cranks up the stress in a real police poly exam. They won't quite admit the friendly exams mean practically nothing, because that wouldn't put any money in the bank, but you can tell they know that full well.
------
I have close to zero faith in contracted polys, people beat them all the time. I have even less faith in 'Recovered memories,' unless there is some actual physical evidence to back them up, they are more likely to be the brain doing creative storytelling than to be factual.
-
Since we're now in the realm of alleged crimes (whether the statute of limitations has run out or not), Grassley should demand a similar standard of evidence.
Prosecution witness doesn't want to testify when called by the court, even with the court bending over backwards to protect them? Too bad, and if the case hinges on their testimony it gets dismissed. The defendant has a right to face their accuser.
Prosecutor suddenly throws in new charges that they knew about all along because they didn't make their case in the first place? HELL NO, the original charge will get thrown out, the prosecutor will be censured by the court, maybe disbarred, and possibly could be charged with prosecutorial misconduct and go to jail.
He should say there is nothing new to investigate except DiFi's motivations for sitting on pertinent information, and the victim will either testify or the committee will hold their vote, but one of the two is happening Monday.
-
Maybe someone who knows law better than I do can answer this question...but if this happened in the early 80's wouldn't both parties still have been juveniles? How can this be handled in "adult" court if they were underage at the time?
Also I find it funny that the Libs want the FBI to investigate something they already kicked back to DiFi in July when she tried to get them to investigate the claims originally.
-
Also I find it funny that the Libs want the FBI to investigate something they already kicked back to DiFi in July when she tried to get them to investigate the claims originally.
Just stalling for time....
-
Maybe someone who knows law better than I do can answer this question...but if this happened in the early 80's wouldn't both parties still have been juveniles? How can this be handled in "adult" court if they were underage at the time?
Also I find it funny that the Libs want the FBI to investigate something they already kicked back to DiFi in July when she tried to get them to investigate the claims originally.
That's crossed my mind as well; of course now their fall-back defense of the demand is that "No, we mean the whole thing needs to be investigated just as background to a perjury case against him for denying he did it, 'cause we just know he did since a female Democrat partisan said so."
-
Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez
As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University. The offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it. Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote. The Democratic Senate offices reviewing the allegations believe that they merit further investigation. “This is another serious, credible, and disturbing allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. It should be fully investigated,” Senator Mazie Hirono, of Hawaii, said. An aide in one of the other Senate offices added, “These allegations seem credible, and we’re taking them very seriously. If established, they’re clearly disqualifying.”
The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. Later, she spent years working for an organization that supports victims of domestic violence. The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.
Another allegation, this time during Brett Kavanaugh's college year at Yale.
The accuser is Deborah Ramirez.
-
Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez
Another allegation, this time during Brett Kavanaugh's college year at Yale.
The accuser is Deborah Ramirez.
35 years and now she suddenly "remembers " I'm not buying it
-
Avenatti says he represents woman with ‘credible information’ about Kavanaugh
https://nypost.com/2018/09/23/avenatti-says-he-represents-woman-with-credible-information-about-kavanaugh/
Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti claims he is now representing a woman with “credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge.”
The reveal came Sunday just minutes before the New Yorker popped a story outlining sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh made by a former college classmate.
Avenatti says the alleged victim, Deborah Ramirez, is not his client.
Michael Avenatti claims there is a thurd accuser. He represents Stormy Daniels.
-
Avenatti says he represents woman with ‘credible information’ about Kavanaugh
https://nypost.com/2018/09/23/avenatti-says-he-represents-woman-with-credible-information-about-kavanaugh/
Michael Avenatti claims there is a thurd accuser. He represents Stormy Daniels.
Yeah this smells like someone trying to jump on a bandwagon.
-
Stop and think about it...this man has been vetted at least three times...possibly four I can't remember with the deepest background checks available because of where he was working and for his nomination to the Federal bench.
You're telling me that in those background checks that at times go back to your first grade teacher they didn't find this alleged incident?
C'mon now...
-
Yeah this smells like someone trying to jump on a bandwagon.
He is your classic whore of a lawyer. About all that can be said is he represents whores too.
-
He is your classic whore of a lawyer. About all that can be said is he represents whores too.
LOL! very true!
-
Avenatti says he represents woman with ‘credible information’ about Kavanaugh
https://nypost.com/2018/09/23/avenatti-says-he-represents-woman-with-credible-information-about-kavanaugh/
Michael Avenatti claims there is a thurd accuser. He represents Stormy Daniels.
Maybe credible information from a potentially future felon?
The latest accuser was older than Kavanaugh (16 and 18) and is claiming she, as an adult, went to parties where kids were drugging and raping other kids and never reported any of it to anybody.
(A felony)
And she kept going back to watch more kids fill up on alcohol and drugs and rape each other.
(Multiple felonies)
She graduated three years ahead of Kavanaugh so she would’ve been a college student attending high school rape parties orchestrated by 15 yr. olds.
As far as having multiple "security clearances" ... I've had more than a few in my lifetime.
They are usually called "building passes" to secure building sites!
Many general contractors in the Washington area have them.
BTW: In Maryland, there is no statute of limitations on these types of crimes.
-
Makes one wonder why this woman is allowed to have security clearances. I'm sure these parties were all uncovered when HER background checks were done and she told them she went to rape parties and in fact was raped herself by multiple men. Now we don't know if she went until it was her turn to be raped, or if she continued to go after the raping just to make sure she didn't dream it all up ...
God this is so stupid.
KC
-
If he was part of a rape gang, he must not have been very good at it to stay a virgin.
-
Ex-boyfriend filed restraining order against third Kavanaugh accuser
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order-against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348
Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and a friend of attending house parties where women — including herself — were sexually assaulted, had a restraining order filed against her years later in Miami by her former boyfriend.
A Miami-Dade County court docket shows a petition for injunction against Swetnick was filed March 1, 2001, by her former boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, who told POLITICO Wednesday the two had dated for four years before they broke up.
Thirteen days later, the case was dismissed, not long after an affidavit of non-ability to advance fees was filed.
Julie Swetnick is trouble from her history.
-
EXCLUSIVE: 'Christine Ford threw her under the bus.' Strained 'sex assault' witness Leland Keyser is seen for the first time as close family member confirms she did NOT corroborate school friend Ford's story to FBI
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6235463/Christine-Fords-high-school-friend-blindsided-named-corroborating-witness.html
Christine Ford's high school friend, Leland Keyser, was 'completely blindsided' and left 'reeling' when the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape named her as a corroborating witness.
Speaking exclusively to DailyMailTV a family member close to Keyser, 52, said: 'Christine didn't give her so much as a heads up - as far as I know they haven't really spoken for several years and they're certainly not close anymore.
'Leland was completely blindsided by her name being thrown into it all. The first thing she knew about it was when she woke up on Thursday morning and her name was just everywhere. It was crazy.'
Leland Keyser feels that Christine Blasey Ford threw her under the bus.
-
Christine Ford DID NOT coach me for a polygraph: Kavanaugh accuser's lifelong friend trashes claim from wronged ex-boyfriend that she lied to senators
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6235637/Ex-boyfriend-Christine-Ford-says-WASNT-afraid-flying-closed-spaces.html
An ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford has come forward to contradict her testimony that she was claustrophobic and had trouble flying as a result of her alleged assault - but was slammed as a liar by the woman he claimed Ford coached.
The unnamed ex wrote to Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to say he lived with Ford for a time and dated her for a period of six years until he found out that she had been unfaithful. He says he witnessed her coach a friend on passing a lie detector test during that time.
Ford denied under oath that she had ever done anything like that.
An ex-boyfriend states that Christine Blasey Ford coached a friend to pass a lie detector test. It is no surprise that lie detector or polygraph tests are not admissible in court. It can be admissible under strict condition.