Abuse accustations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Kavanaugh

[Wales-Bales]

Too many gaps in the accusers story and not enough evidence against the accused. The Democrats were also playing fast and loose with the way they managed the whole episode. I agree with Sen. Graham, they were both victims. Sen. Feinstein set her up with a Clinton Lawyer and a McCabe lawyer. Sadly it all seems to be about the Democrats, and not the two people we saw giving testomony today. This case wouldn't stand a chance of succeeding in a court of law.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Too many gaps in the accusers story and not enough evidence against the accused. The Democrats were also playing fast and loose with the way they managed the whole episode. I agree with Sen. Graham, they were both victims. Sen. Feinstein set her up with a Clinton Lawyer and a McCabe lawyer. Sadly it all seems to be about the Democrats, and not the two people we saw giving testomony today. This case wouldn't stand a chance of succeeding in a court of law.

It's not a court of law though - and he isn't convincing at all. If he is innocent he is making the biggest mess of the situation possible. The Devil's Triangle explanation was perhaps artful too.

[Wales-Bales]

It's not a court of law though - and he isn't convincing at all. If he is innocent he is making the biggest mess of the situation possible. The Devil's Triangle explanation was perhaps artful too.

It was an impossible situation for both of them. The democrats were running a character assassination and weren't interested in observing the rule of law, while the republicans employed a softer approach towards the accuser, who incidentally would have been shredded before a competant prosecutor. Today was a very sad day for eveybody involved, and especially for politics where the win at all costs ugliness has been laid bare for all to see.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

It was an impossible situation for both of them. The democrats were running a character assassination and weren't interested in observing the rule of law, while the republicans employed a softer approach towards the accuser, who incidentally would have been shredded before a competant prosecutor. Today was a very sad day for eveybody involved, and especially for politics where the win at all costs ugliness has been laid bare for all to see.

Yes but one of them is lying. And why is he struggling so much to prove his integrity? Some of his responses are excrutiating.

[Wales-Bales]

Yes but one of them is lying. And why is he struggling so much to prove his integrity? Some of his responses are excrutiating.

Because it was a character assassination and not a trial. Nobody would survive that process the way it was orchestrated and setup.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Because it was a character assassination and not a trial. Nobody would survive that process the way it was orchestrated and setup.

I have watched every second so far and he is, without doubt, dishonest, evasive and narcissistic.

[Wales-Bales]

I have watched every second so far and he is, without doubt, dishonest, evasive and narcissistic.

They were pressing to get the FBI involved at every given opportunity, hence there was a microscopic analysis of his every word and action which led to him being overcautious to the point of being excruciating. The Democrats playbook involved geting his confirmation delayed until after the midterms, in the hope that they could win the house and stop the republican nomination. In football parlance, Kavanaugh parked the bus and refused to play their game. It's possible that something may have happened to that woman, but I'm just not convinced that it was Kavanaugh who did it. BTW I don't think this matter is finished yet, still more to come..

[Wales-Bales]

Yes but one of them is lying. And why is he struggling so much to prove his integrity? Some of his responses are excrutiating.

This is not a neutral statement, you have have clearly expressed an opinion that one of them is lying, and you are already showing a hint of bias against Kavanaugh.

I have watched every second so far and he is, without doubt, dishonest, evasive and narcissistic.

This backs up my first point

And only one of them has taken a polygraph test.

You are implying that Ford has passed a polygraph test, so it must be Kavanaugh who is lying?

That isn't correct though, is it? Being aware of things and them existing are two different things.

I'm struggling with this one. You cannot be aware of something that does not exist.

And don't forget that she not only passed the polygraph but has called for the FBI to establish some of the circumstantial evidence. On the other hand, he has reacted quite differently. He has been lying through his teeth about his semi-angelic youth and he has clearly shown that he is unsuitable for the job whatever.

Here we are back to you insinuating that he must be the one who is lying, hence Ford is not lying.

The polygraph would be of no relevance whatsoever if it didn't include any mention of him.

Again implying that she must be the one who is truthful. In reality they won't hand over the test details. Why is that?

Have you just answered your question? Even if you don't think you did I have to keep reminding you that she WANTS further investigation to establish the truth. On the other hand, he doesn't. I'll be amazed if he survives this as more statements about him are coming on record every day. Like many events in politics it's not necessarily the original incident that sinks a politician but the lies in covering up those incidents.

Yet more taking sides and distorting of the the truth. Kavanaugh said it was up to the Judiciary Committee to decide if there should be any further investigations. He wasn't against it at all.

Kavanaugh's supporters would have jumped on any talk of a polygraph that didn't include any mention of Kavanaugh (and for very obvious reason).

https://www.scribd.com/document/3895...s-2#from_embed

How could they when the Ford lawyers won't release them? You seem to be hoping this is true to pin the guilt on Kavanaugh.

The opportunity for the FBI to get involved would obviously present a better opportunity to establish some of the claims on both sides. Ignoring information that can be gleaned outside the current sessions is hardly justice and rather negligent concerning a very serious subject. Some of the Democrats have been asking for just one week's grace.

Now you are pushing the Democrat talking points. Are you sure you are not showing bias here?

Not sure of the fine detail. There are certainly some inconsistencies with some things on her side. However, she still came over as more credible that the pompous, egotistical and untruthful judge. Her case may never be proven but he has shown what he is made of....and beyond reasonable doubt.

Now you are saying that Ford is more credible than Kavanaugh. That is an opinion, yet you said you haven't formed one.

Interviewing third parties from whom they have merely received statements handed on a plate hitherto. The biggest omission being his alleged accomplice.

You seem to be constructing roadblocks here. The statements were made under penalty of perjury.

I have mentioned inconsistencies on her side and there are many on his. You seem to be the one with the blinkers on as you not only misconstrue what I wrote but your views have been totally unilateral so far. My main perspective is that he is dishonest about his past, which should preclude him from taking up the position he seeks.

What inconstancies have you mentioned about Ford? Hardly any as far as I can see, but you have been consistently against Kavanaugh and you are certain that he is the one who is lying, and we established from your first statement that only one of them is telling the truth!

Let's not personalise this and stick to what is relevant. The guy has repeatedly been dishonest about his youth and rather than take the opportunity to be honest now he has repeatedly lied, obfuscated, re-emphasised his lies in TV interviews and responded to questions with narcissistic rants, idiotic comments and petulant responses. He has painted himself whiter than white and it appears that it's just not true. If I was an American I would be very concerned that someone so dishonest and manipulative could be considered for the post he aspires to.

Ok, I get it! It's Kavanaugh who is lying!

The last couple of days have been about the guy's suitability for a very important post. It's obvious that party politics are hugely involved but his integrity is shot.

So that the fact that Ford may be framing him is irrelevant?

Please don't go off at tangents regarding statements I make regarding the credibility of Kavanaugh. I don't wish to align myself with your views in general.

So I shouldn't mention your extreme bias? And you talk about self-awareness!

[cyril evans awaydays]

This is not a neutral statement, you have have clearly expressed an opinion that one of them is lying, and you are already showing a hint of bias against Kavanaugh.


This backs up my first point


You are implying that Ford has passed a polygraph test, so it must be Kavanaugh who is lying?


I'm struggling with this one. You cannot be aware of something that does not exist.


Here we are back to you insinuating that he must be the one who is lying, hence Ford is not lying.


Again implying that she must be the one who is truthful. In reality they won't hand over the test details. Why is that?


Yet more taking sides and distorting of the the truth. Kavanaugh said it was up to the Judiciary Committee to decide if there should be any further investigations. He wasn't against it at all.


How could they when the Ford lawyers won't release them? You seem to be hoping this is true to pin the guilt on Kavanaugh.


Now you are pushing the Democrat talking points. Are you sure you are not showing bias here?


Now you are saying that Ford is more credible than Kavanaugh. That is an opinion, yet you said you haven't formed one.


You seem to be constructing roadblocks here. The statements were made under penalty of perjury.


What inconstancies have you mentioned about Ford? Hardly any as far as I can see, but you have been consistently against Kavanaugh and you are certain that he is the one who is lying, and we established from your first statement that only one of them is telling the truth!


Ok, I get it! It's Kavanaugh who is lying!


So that the fact that Ford may be framing him is irrelevant?



So I shouldn't mention your extreme bias? And you talk about self-awareness!

If you want to take this polemicism lark seriously I'd invest in a good skin thickening cream.

[Wales-Bales]

If you want to take this polemicism lark seriously I'd invest in a good skin thickening cream.

You always have a lot things to say, but I can't recall you ever saying one thing that I didn't already know!

[lardy]

It's not a court of law though - and he isn't convincing at all. If he is innocent he is making the biggest mess of the situation possible. The Devil's Triangle explanation was perhaps artful too.

You're right TBG. A court would have other witnesses. But they were deliberately excluded here to make it a he said she said, which helps the defendant no end. As expected, it was a sham box ticking exercise; not so expected was his dreadful performance. The American Bar have said today that he shouldn't be voted in without a proper investigation.

Speaking of Devil's Triangle, Wikipedia has been updated from a congressional IP address to include it as a drinking game (it isn't) rather than a sexual game (it is).

[lardy]

You're right TBG. A court would have other witnesses. But they were deliberately excluded here to make it a he said she said, which helps the defendant no end. As expected, it was a sham box ticking exercise; not so expected was his dreadful performance. The American Bar have said today that he shouldn't be voted in without a proper investigation.

Speaking of Devil's Triangle, Wikipedia has been updated from a congressional IP address to include it as a drinking game (it isn't) rather than a sexual game (it is).

Interestingly, Lindsay Graham called the ABA the gold standard in his emotional speech defending Bart at the hearing.

[cyril evans awaydays]

Someone lied on oath yesterday. It was either the person (that woman as Christine Blasey Ford was so delicately called in an earlier post) who appeared to have very little to personally gain by being in that room yesterday or it was that man who had every thing to lose.

[lardy]

Someone lied on oath yesterday. It was either the person (that woman as Christine Blasey Ford was so delicately called in an earlier post) who appeared to have very little to personally gain by being in that room yesterday or it was that man who had every thing to lose.

Does one of them have a history of lying under oath? That might help the ccmb sofa detectives come to a conclusion.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Someone lied on oath yesterday. It was either the person (that woman as Christine Blasey Ford was so delicately called in an earlier post) who appeared to have very little to personally gain by being in that room yesterday or it was that man who had every thing to lose.

And only one of them has taken a polygraph test.

[lardy]

And only one of them has taken a polygraph test.

To be fair, I wouldn't trust those.

[the other bob wilson]

Too many gaps in the accusers story and not enough evidence against the accused. The Democrats were also playing fast and loose with the way they managed the whole episode. I agree with Sen. Graham, they were both victims. Sen. Feinstein set her up with a Clinton Lawyer and a McCabe lawyer. Sadly it all seems to be about the Democrats, and not the two people we saw giving testomony today. This case wouldn't stand a chance of succeeding in a court of law.

So says the man who says he likes to examine the evidence logically before arriving at a decision and yet, once he has done so, still always comes to an anti Democratic Party decision. As I've said before, I willingly admit my bias, but mine is as nothing compared to yours and yet you still carry on as if it doesn't exist .

[lardy]

So says the man who says he likes to examine the evidence logically before arriving at a decision and yet, once he has done so, still always comes to an anti Democratic Party decision. As I've said before, I willingly admit my bias, but mine is as nothing compared to yours and yet you still carry on as if it doesn't exist .

Fair play to the democrats, they set this up by getting her to tell her therapist his name and the story in 2012. How about that for planning ahead?

And also fair play to them for getting a woman to have her life ruined just so they can...What exactly? The GOP can easily get another judge voted on, and one they all approve of rather than Bart. I'm not sure exactly what they are supposed to have won here.

[Wales-Bales]

Fair play to the democrats, they set this up by getting her to tell her therapist his name and the story in 2012. How about that for planning ahead.

She testified under oath that Kavenaugh's name was not mentioned in the therapists notes!

[Wales-Bales]

So says the man who says he likes to examine the evidence logically before arriving at a decision and yet, once he has done so, still always comes to an anti Democratic Party decision. As I've said before, I willingly admit my bias, but mine is as nothing compared to yours and yet you still carry on as if it doesn't exist .

I was wearing my legal hat, there was a distinct lack of evidence. No date, no location, a changing storyline, and all the people alledged to have been there all denied being there. Then there was the fear of flying, the Clinton lawyers, the leak to the press, etc. It just didn't add up. And the Kavanaugh bloke was being character assasinated, they were even trying to turn juvenile schoolboy humour into proof. It was a no-win situation for both of them. If anybody was to blame it was the Democrats. Feinstein never told Kavanaugh about these allegations when she met with him. The Dems were playing dirty, leaking to the press etc.

[the other bob wilson]

I was wearing my legal hat, there was a distinct lack of evidence. No date, no location, a changing storyline, and all the people alledged to have been there all denied being there. Then there was the fear of flying, the Clinton lawyers, the leak to the press, etc. It just didn't add up. And the Kavanaugh bloke was being character assasinated, they were even trying to turn juvenile schoolboy humour into proof. It was a no-win situation for both of them. If anybody was to blame it was the Democrats. Feinstein never told Kavanaugh about these allegations when she met with him. The Dems were playing dirty, leaking to the press etc.

But any attempt by you to try and explain yourself doesn't work, because, whether you've got your legal or sitting on the fence weighing up the evidence hat on, you ALWAYS come to the same conclusion!

[Wales-Bales]

But any attempt by you to try and explain yourself doesn't work, because, whether you've got your legal or sitting on the fence weighing up the evidence hat on, you ALWAYS come to the same conclusion!

You can't argue with the facts!