Feinstein Refers Kavanaugh to FBI for Alleged Sexual Assault 30 years ago - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14948510
Drlee wrote:The nominated a person whose only qualification is that he does not believe a president can be indited.{sic}

He's on the DC Court of Appeals. That's where many SCOTUS nominees come from. 35 years of public service with increasing levels of responsibility isn't enough for you?

Stormsmith wrote:I was deeply disappointed with Nikki Haley this morning. She repeatedly said (on the matter of Dr Blasey Ford) 'We need to investigate this rapidly". On the one hand, she might have meant, "just get on with it and stop wasting time", on the other, it sounded like she was advancing a case for investigating with slapdashoodery. Maybe her husband was unclear. :excited:

At some point, Ford is going to have to testify to something more concrete, like a year, month, day and location. Every woman I've talked to that says they've been attacked can tell you pretty fine details. Ford cannot seem to recall anything meaningful at all.

jimjam wrote:Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are investigating another allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh, according to The New Yorker. Deborah Ramirez, who is 53, told the magazine that when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale in the 1983-84 academic school year, she remembers that he “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.”

Let me guess: no witnesses, no definitive time, and no definitive location; and, wasn't too concerned about it when he was appointed to the second highest court in the land. :roll:

I am sure Kavanaugh is going to deliver his own "high tech lynching" speech.

I found this quite poignant. Joe Kennedy III thought it would be wise to come out in favor of unsubstantiated allegations of sexual assault given his family's lurid reputation.
Joe Kennedy’s tweet on sexual assault insensitivity is a bit much

Some high profile editorial boards have chastised the Democrats on their rather obvious attempt to smear Kavanaugh into withdrawing.
Editorial: Desperate Dems trying to torpedo Brett Kavanaugh confirmation

The #MeToo Kavanaugh Ambush

I hope he fights to the end.
#14948522
I don't think you guys get what is at stake here. If Brett Kavanaugh doesn't get to be on the SCOTUS then the feelings of other rich, white rapists will be hurt.

This is a struggle over the soul of the Republican party itself. Kavanaugh absolutely must be forced on AMERICA the same way he forces himself on women.
#14948524
Kavanaugh lied about it. That should be reason enough to lose him the nomination.

I know the other republicans are more than willing to support rapists, because, like, it happened a long time ago... but time doesn't erase injury, or negate the crime.
#14948525
Godstud wrote:Kavanaugh lied about it. That should be reason enough to lose him the nomination.

I know the other republicans are more than willing to support rapists, because, like, it happened a long time ago... but time doesn't erase injury, or negate the crime.


Yeah and Bill Clinton lying about sex disqualified him for the Republicans. Double-standards methinks!
#14948531
Kavanaugh's job if elected by the Senate is to manufacture Constitutional interpretations to support conservative ideology, as liberal judges job is to manufacture constitutional interpretations to support liberal ideology. A judge's job is to represent the views of his Presidential and Senatorial electors. I wonder if we will ever see another appointment, where the President lacks a Senatorial majority.

Even a successful rape attempt, decades ago in no way interferes with a politician's ability to do his job. Liberals are no different to Conservatives, they couldn't really care less about the actual crimes, or lack of them. Liberals have celebrated rap(e) music for decades. In Europe they welcome rapeugees with open arms. Liberals covered up for Jewish Weinstein and Black Cosby for decades. They rationalised Bill Clinton as America's first Black President, giving him licence to assault and harass White women with impunity.
#14948533
Rich wrote:Even a successful rape attempt, decades ago in no way interferes with a politician's ability to do his job.

Um, it definitely speaks to the kinds of decisions and behavior he will allow, which is his job, which makes it his ability to do his job.

You're talking about a guy whose major immediate ruling would be moving towards overturning Roe v. Wade, which is directly in the wheelhouse of sexual assault.

Is there an expiration on sexual assault for you lot? What about murder? Or is it like OK if they ask God for forgiveness? I don't know how you lot work.

Liberals are no different to Conservatives

No shit. Literally the only people saying that are conservatives trying to minimize their own abhorrent behavior by saying that.

I suppose it is just an extension of What Aboutism.
#14948534
Rich wrote:Even a successful rape attempt, decades ago in no way interferes with a politician's ability to do his job.
Yes, it does. It shows his lack of integrity, and honesty if he has to LIE about something that happened as a young man. If you think differently, then it only shows that these values are not what you want someone on the Supreme Court, to have. :hmm:

Rich wrote:They rationalised Bill Clinton as America's first Black President, giving him licence to assault and harass White women with impunity.
:eh: Are you on drugs?
#14948539
foxdemon wrote:The reason many people are suspicious of the allegations is the timing. That’s why it looks like a smear campaign.

... or this is exactly what the confirmation is supposed to do. What other time do you want things to come up? Maybe, just maybe, when there is a large movement studying his life and actions to affirm him for a major, lifetime post to the highest court. I can't think of a more appropriate time for shameful things he has done to come up.
#14948545
Zagadka wrote:Is there an expiration on sexual assault for you lot? What about murder? Or is it like OK if they ask God for forgiveness? I don't know how you lot work.

My lot? I'm a pro death Pagan. I just don't pretend to care about the personal behaviour of candidates for powerful political posts over their ideology.

If I was employing someone as a cleaner, a secretary or a manager, there personal integrity and character would be far more important than their political / religious ideology. However for the president of the United States, a Senator or a supreme court judge their political religious ideology is far more important than personal integrity and character.

The first question to Kavanaugh (as it should be to every Christian) should be do you support the Israelite genocide at Jericho. Does the Bible tell the truth that the Creator of the universe ordered the extermination of the Canaanites or is this a filthy Jewish supremacist racist lie? Why is the Bible blatantly contradicting itself by page 3? Why do you believe this drivel? These are the sorts of questions we should be asking Kavanaugh, not about unrecoverable events decades ago when there was a completely different social culture.
#14948573
So, another front opened in the Democrats’ ongoing weaponization of the #MeToo movement. How many of us really want to live under the Red Queen’s rules (verdict first, trial after if at all). I mean did anyone catch these gems from Ramirez’s comments in the New Yorker article?

    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 ...

    Later, she said, she was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words ...

    Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening ...
So she was completely plastered that night with significant memory issues because of it, but after six days of coaching she’s confident that Kavanaugh was the one that exposed himself. You all might want to take a look at this column about a discussion with one of the preeminent experts on memory, whose work has had a significant impact on how eyewitness accounts are handled in trials — who also happens to be pro-choice Democrat who really doesn’t want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court:

    Elizabeth F. Loftus is a professor at the University of California, Irvine, a cognitive psychologist, and a preeminent expert on human memory whose work on the subject in criminal cases has been a crucial key to establishing a stricter standard for “recovered memories” and a greater requirement for corroborating evidence in criminal trials. She is also a self-described “pro-choice Democrat” who is “scared” at the prospect of a Supreme Court with Kavanaugh on it, yet honest and fair-minded enough to want the process to be “fair” to all involved.

    Which includes Kavanaugh himself, who of late has been accused - by a woman who was 15-years-old at the time and who reportedly never mentioned the attack until a 2012 marital counseling session - of an act of sexual assault allegedly committed when he was a 17-year-old high school student.

    Given so much at stake based on one individual’s 36-years-removed memory, and especially her reported dependence on the controversial practice of psychotherapy, Loftus seemed the perfect individual to speak to on the subject. Thankfully, granting the fact that there are so many factors we still don’t know for certain, Loftus happily agreed to speak with me on Saturday about the Kavanaugh case and issues that can arise from relying on memory alone absent corroborating evidence.

    “I don’t see evidence that this is a typical repressed memory case,” Loftus said as we began our talk. “That doesn’t seem to be the pattern here. What does seem to have happened, it appears as if in 2012, 30 years after she was in high school, or age 15, she is in marital counseling for some reason - we don’t know what - and the topic comes up that she was assaulted by some boys in high school.”

    “Why did that come up in marital therapy?” she continued while acknowledging that there seems to be evidence that Ford was assaulted by someone in some manner. “That would be something an investigation might reveal. We have no idea.”

    A key, to Dr. Loftus, is when Ford eventually attached Kavanaugh’s name to what happened to her in 1982.

    “I don’t see any evidence that she said the name at that time [in 2012], so when did she attach the name of Brett Kavanaugh to the episode?” she wondered. “An investigation might reveal that she continued on in the therapy and that they developed in more detail, and it might reveal that - who knows - she looked at yearbooks and tried to identify anybody she might remember from the boys at Georgetown Prep. We just don’t know.”

    Of the possibility that the name could have been added later as a part of “memory recovery” psychological techniques, Loftus responded: “Possibly. It’s just one possibility since we have incomplete information about this.”

    I asked Loftus about the likelihood of not remembering details about something, then suddenly remembering it decades later.

    “There is a motive to remember sexual assault because there is a motive to explain your problems and give you a justification and a reason for why you have problems, and that’s one of the reasons that I see happen in a typical recovered memory case,” said Dr. Loftus before reiterating the fact that we don’t entirely know, besides “some kind of marital difficulty,” what brought her into therapy with her husband.

    The professor told me about two assaults from her own childhood experience, one of which she held onto for years while instantly telling authorities about the other.

    “I had a sexual assault when I was 15 by some boys from a neighboring high school,” she said. “I remember it pretty well but I could not tell you for life of me who they were. I don’t know if any of them went on to be famous.”

    (“So, how does she,” she wondered aloud at that point. “He was a nobody back then. How did she know it was him?”)

    “I told, right away,” said Loftus. “Why? I’m not sure exactly.” While she contends the assault when she was 15 was “worse” than what Ford has described so far, Loftus “told right away in my case and actually there was a subsequent - where boys from high school got together and they apologized and it was over.”

    Loftus mentioned that it is “certainly” quite common not to tell authorities right away in “child sex abuse cases,” but the “sort of teenage assault kind of thing” Kavauaugh is alleged to have done is “a little less embarrassing than child sex assault.”

    “If she ran away and escaped, I don’t know why you don’t tell, in some sense,” said Loftus. “It seems easier to tell than the altar boy molested by the priest.”

    Loftus didn’t tell anyone about other abuse until “a few years” after she was married to her then-husband.

    While acknowledging that “people react differently to experiences,” Dr. Loftus also expressed skepticism about the root causes of the “symptoms” - such as PTSD and anxiety issues - Ford claims to have as a result of the assault.

    Our talk inevitably circled back to the fact that we just “don’t know” so many things about this case. If we knew, for example, how many of the supporters who knew Judge Kavanaugh from his high school days were from the girl’s school Ford attended, we might discover how well Ford likely knew him as well.

    “Yeah,” she responded, laughing. “Because I still feel that there’s a chance that continued psychotherapy beyond the initial disclosure session could have resulted in what it sometimes does - developing the story, making it more coherent, adding details. But did those details get developed in psychotherapy? And again, we don’t know, and I know she’s a psychology professor and seems to have done a lot of good work in statistics and biostatistics. You can have intelligent, educated people who develop distorted memories. It could happen to any of us.”

    Finally, whether through psychotherapy or her own memory over the years, could Ford have somehow “amplified” what happened to her to construct a very real “memory” of something that at the time may have been in actuality more benign - such as a misplaced grope or an awkward kiss?

    “It is certainly possible that it wasn’t quite as frightening or as violent as she’s now describing it and as people are now refer to it, as a violent attempted rape,” said Dr. Loftus. “It’s possible that it got more extreme in the course of her thinking about it.”

    “In the midst of the MeToo movement I think some people are really reluctant to do anything other than embrace her story,” noted Dr. Loftus. “I’m a Democrat and I’m a pro-choice person, and I’m scared of having him on the Supreme Court, but if he doesn’t get on I want it to be fair.”
#14948576
SpecialOlympian wrote:This is a struggle over the soul of the Republican party itself.

Nobody cares about the Republican party anymore. The corporation itself will probably live, but the lily livered pansy men like Jeff Flake are going the way of Bob Michel. They're sort of nice fellows, but they do not have the mettle for politics.

Godstud wrote:Kavanaugh lied about it. That should be reason enough to lose him the nomination.

I know the other republicans are more than willing to support rapists, because, like, it happened a long time ago... but time doesn't erase injury, or negate the crime.

How do you know he lied about it? He hasn't even testified about it and neither has Blasey Ford.

redcarpet wrote:Yeah and Bill Clinton lying about sex disqualified him for the Republicans. Double-standards methinks!

They just lost a presidential election to a political neophyte by trying to play these games. They have a contemporary problem with evidence-supported allegations against Ellis and they have resoundingly came out against his accusers. They've done absurd things like get Hillary Clinton to weigh in on the side of Blasey Ford when Hillary herself was running a scorched Earth campaign against Paula Corbin Jones. You'd think they learned nothing from Trump's response to the NBC tape attack bringing Juanita Broderick, etc. to the debate as his guests. They even trotted out Joseph Kennedy III. That's like having the grandson and son of the grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan condemn somebody for racism after coming fresh from a cross burning.

Zagadka wrote:... and he was impeached...

Yes. There was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed perjury in a civil trial against him. Guess who voted not guilty among US Senators? Dianne Feinstein. That's my point. These people have no moral credibility whatsoever.

Rich wrote:Liberals have celebrated rap(e) music for decades.

It's okay if black people put out misogynist music. It's only a problem if white people do it.

Rich wrote:Liberals covered up for Jewish Weinstein and Black Cosby for decades.

They also took them down way after the fact, I guess for symbolic reasons?

Rich wrote:They rationalised Bill Clinton as America's first Black President, giving him licence to assault and harass White women with impunity.

They also had contemporary cases. Jones was within the statute of limitations on filing her claim. Additionally, it was the Democrats attempt to destroy Clarence Thomas that brought the tort of sexual harassment to the fore. Bill Clinton was the first Democrat victim of the high tech lynching meant for Clarence Thomas.

Zagadka wrote:Um, it definitely speaks to the kinds of decisions and behavior he will allow, which is his job, which makes it his ability to do his job.

Can you demonstrate a single ruling from his 300+ rulings where this is the case?

Zagadka wrote:You're talking about a guy whose major immediate ruling would be moving towards overturning Roe v. Wade, which is directly in the wheelhouse of sexual assault.

Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with sexual assault.

Zagadka wrote:Is there an expiration on sexual assault for you lot?

Yes. It's about 4 years. It should remain. The only extension allowed should be for women who go directly to authorities, and the authorities obtain DNA evidence but are not yet able to identify a perpetrator. If they have DNA evidence of a perp, they should be able to prosecute. Otherwise, statute of limitations should apply. As for people like Ford coming to the fore for politically-motivated purposes with flimsy stories, they should not be treated with respect or kid gloves. If she had no problem with him on the circuit court, there is no special reason they should be believed for SCOTUS.

Zagadka wrote:What about murder?

There is no statute of limitations for murder.

Zagadka wrote:Literally the only people saying that are conservatives trying to minimize their own abhorrent behavior by saying that.

What abhorrent behavior?

Godstud wrote:It shows his lack of integrity, and honesty if he has to LIE about something that happened as a young man.

It seems that everyone is backing up Kavanaugh, even Blasey Ford's named witnesses. Given the evidence against Blasey Ford's charges--all of it nothing more than press ruminations so far, it doesn't seem like she has a strong case at all.

foxdemon wrote:The reason many people are suspicious of the allegations is the timing. That’s why it looks like a smear campaign.

It's not just the timing from the standpoint of only brining it up when he's nominated to SCOTUS. It's the fact that Feinstein knew about the charges and didn't bring them up during the regular hearings. It's a complete violation of Senate ethics. This bullshit about respect for someone wanting to remain anonymous is horseshit. If you think someone has done something wrong, you bring it up straight away in the hearings. The whole point of this was to delay the confirmation vote until after the election.

Zagadka wrote:... or this is exactly what the confirmation is supposed to do. What other time do you want things to come up?

Immediately after the alleged offense was supposed to have occurred. For example, if someone saw a person stealing some hub caps 30+ years ago, the police would rightly be bemused about receiving a report about it today. They would probably think there was something wrong with the person reporting the missing hub caps if the event transpired 30+ years ago. Rightly so.

Zagadka wrote:Maybe, just maybe, when there is a large movement studying his life and actions to affirm him for a major, lifetime post to the highest court.

You know, that's an absolutely fucking brilliant point you just made there Zagadka. The Democrats knew about this during the hearings. They didn't bring it up during the hearings. They only brought it up AFTER the hearings were over. They want us to all act surprised, like it was some eleventh hour report. It wasn't. They knew, and they deliberately withheld it. They could have asked Kavanaugh point blank while he was under oath. They chose not to do that.

Zagadka wrote:I can't think of a more appropriate time for shameful things he has done to come up.

Really? Do you think that we should all withhold crime reports for 36 years? If you see someone shoot and kill another person, are you going to say to yourself, "Hrmm... I think I'll sit on this one for awhile, but if the perp seeks high office or becomes famous, I'm going to report this murder."? Seriously? As for appropriate time, the appropriate time would have been in the hearings themselves. We agree on that much. That's why the whole thing is suspect now, because Blasey Ford's particulars are suspiciously vague and uncertain and she wouldn't put them in a sworn statement. Even her named witnesses are taking Kavanaugh's side.

Rich wrote:I just don't pretend to care about the personal behaviour of candidates for powerful political posts over their ideology.

If there is a serious question about their ability to discharge their office, that would be something to consider. Drunken high school parties? For fuck sake. How many people in the United States Senate would have to step down if the standards they are trying to apply to Kavanaugh were to be upheld and their drunken high school or college antics were to come out for public review? These are a bunch of dope smoking partying Baby Boomers for fuck sakes. These are the people who champion Roe v. Wade precisely because they don't have any self-control or sense of personal responsibility.
#14948578
jimjam wrote:Weaponization? So what! It's how the game is played. Politics ain't bean bag. Republicans/Trump are reaping what they sow.

Yes, how dare the Republicans win a presidential election they should have lost and put the Democrats’ hold on the Supreme Court at risk! Obviously, they must be crushed by any means necessary, even if that means adopting the Red Queens’ Rule. They must be either really confident that their allies in the MSM(D) will be able to prevent its use against them or desperate enough to risk it so long as they can maybe hold on to the Supreme Court.
#14948599
Pants-of-dog wrote:So no, he has not been found guilty of a crime without a trial.

As for the public opinion issue, should the press not be allowed to report on these allegations?


No, absolutely not. The idea that a rich white man from a privileged background should ever face consequences is a complete repudiation of my Republican ideals. If we allow one woman to come forward with her story of sexual assault and fail to absolutely tar her as a lying, wanton whore, then other women will feel as if their predators should be held accountable as well.

Whether Kavanaugh actually did all those rapes is immaterial. The real crime is that anyone is trying to hold him accountable for his actions. This is completely unacceptable and, again, a stark condemnation of everything the GOP stands for. Rich white men can rape who they want when they want, period.
#14948608
Pants-of-dog wrote:Has Kavanaugh been found guilty of a crime in a court of law?

He's been slandered and libeled by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the mainstream media. He should be filing an action against the Senate in the US Court of Claims.

Doug64 wrote:It’s called the court of public opinion for a reason.

These are the same people who whine endlessly that police officers are presuming black people guilty and shooting them. Clearly, these people do not mean what they say they mean, and they do not support the issues they say they support.

SpecialOlympian wrote:The idea that a rich white poor black man from an underprivileged background should ever face consequences is a complete repudiation of my RepublicanDemocratic ideals.

There. Fixed that for you. Try out your sentiments if they get applied to poor black people, and see how that works out for you.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 47

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia could[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]

You are a supporter of the genocide against the P[…]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]