Uh oh, Another allegation against Kavanaugh

[Gigimo]

Except this "novel information" amounts to nothing more than an unfounded allegation made by a woman who can't even remember what year the alleged action was even supposed to have taken place.

Innocence or guilt is not important, only the appearance of impropriety is all that's necessary in a certain sector of todays political world. On the other hand guilt is ignored in that same sector if it's one of theirs, two sets of rules one for me and another for thee.

 

[Gigimo]

Ahh, like how the right is trying to do!

As long as that agenda is 180 degrees out from the activist agenda the country will be just fine. But I have a sneaking suspicion the perpetually lazy would be quite upset if that happens.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Except this "novel information" amounts to...

Except nothing. If previous background checks didn't address this claim, then they are irrelevant.

You don't have any proof, none what-so-ever. The allegations are baseless, both of them

You don't have any proof either, so you have no way of knowing that they are baseless.

In addition we know if the Democrats are allowed to open an investigation, even through the offices of the FBI, and it will never end.

The 'Democrats' can't use the FBI. Trump would direct the FBI, just as Bush the Elder directed the FBI to investigate Anita Hill's claims. It took two or three days.

 

[Sistrin]

Except nothing. If previous background checks didn't address this claim, then they are irrelevant.

There is no logic in your claim at all. In addition your comment serves to prove you have never been the object of an FBI background check. Six previous background checks failed to uncover any evidence of the current claims against Kavanaugh because there was no evidence to find, just as there remains no evidence to support the claims today. The Senate committee has been investigating this claim, and they have yet to find any evidence supporting Ford's claim. You have nothing, nothing except your partisan desire to destroy a man's life and career for no other reason than he isn't a liberal.

You don't have any proof either, so you have no way of knowing that they are baseless.

We have far more proof than you do, bolstered by simple common sense.

The 'Democrats' can't use the FBI.

Wow...

 

[mark kennedy]

Its rather interesting that allegation is serious sexual misconduct would have no cooberating witnesses and people who wrre supposedly there, say they weren't. This is a poorly orchastrated smear campaign. Any more these spurious allegations need not be credible. I think he will be nominated anyway, none of this will stick. But then again, these days who really knows. My guess is after he testifies Thursday they will move quickly to a vote. With a nominee who concievably is prone to possible criminal charges.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We have far more proof than you do,

You should look into what proof means.

 

[Ringo84]

My purpose is not to "push through this nominee," but rather to uphold the Law and the core principles of the Republic, especially innocence until guilt has been proven.

(As a matter of fact, I oppose his candidacy & nomination on other grounds.)

I'm glad to hear the last part, but if the former (that you want to uphold the law and core principles of the republic) are true, why oppose an investigation?
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

In addition we know if the Democrats are allowed to open an investigation, even through the offices of the FBI, and it will never end.

How long did the Anita Hill investigation last? I was seven during that hearing, but recent reading leads me to believe that the investigation of her claims took all of three days.

Three days != "will never end".

Not to mention that there are avenues ripe for investigation:
New Yorker’s Mayer: Ramirez Was Not Initial Source—Other Yale Grads Were

Bottom line - and I've stated this repeatedly: if Republicans were interested in doing a service to the alleged victims, discovering the truth or following procedure, they would investigate. It's crystal clear that all they care about is a Supreme Court "win", which would be a loss for the country, for women, and the Court.
Ringo

 

[ananda]

I'm glad to hear the last part, but if the former (that you want to uphold the law and core principles of the republic) are true, why oppose an investigation?
Ringo

I don't oppose an investigation. They can investigate all they want, but it will/should be fruitless, because of this fact: in the eyes of the Law (specifically, the Senate, in this case), Kavanaugh will (or should) always be seen as innocent until proven guilty. The only place he can lawfully be found and proven guilty on this issue is through the courts of law - not the Senate. It is not the Senate's place to judge his guilt here.

The allegations against him have been brought up. His refutation has also been revealed. There is nothing more to be said in this venue (the Senate). There is no record (I presume) of his guilt from the Courts or Judiciary for the Senate to review. Therefore, the confirmation process should move forward.

 

[Ringo84]

I don't oppose an investigation. They can investigate all they want, but it will/should be fruitless, because of this fact: in the eyes of the Law (specifically, the Senate, in this case), Kavanaugh will (or should) always be seen as innocent until proven guilty. The only place he can lawfully be found and proven guilty on this issue is through the courts of law - not the Senate. It is not the Senate's place to judge his guilt here.

The allegations against him have been brought up. His refutation has also been revealed. There is nothing more to be said in this venue (the Senate). Therefore, the confirmation process should move forward.

You say you don't oppose an investigation, but this makes no sense at all, for several reasons:
1) If there are allegations of sexual assault/abuse in his past, they should be investigated. A mere investigation doesn't make him guilty, but it should be checked
2) If he's innocent, it shouldn't matter whether he's investigated or not, because he'll be proven innocent by the lack of corroboration.
3) The Senate's job is to advise and consent a candidate. They can't do that if they don't know all the facts about the candidate's background. It'd be like applying for a job without submitting any personal information.

How disingenuous can you get? You, like many here, seem to think that an investigation somehow automatically makes Kavanaugh guilty. It just sounds to me that despite your protestation "oh I totally want an investigation", you're worried about what a look into his background will find.
Ringo

 

[ananda]

You say you don't oppose an investigation, but this makes no sense at all, for several reasons:
1) If there are allegations of sexual assault/abuse in his past, they should be investigated. A mere investigation doesn't make him guilty, but it should be checked
2) If he's innocent, it shouldn't matter whether he's investigated or not, because he'll be proven innocent by the lack of corroboration.
3) The Senate's job is to advise and consent a candidate. They can't do that if they don't know all the facts about the candidate's background. It'd be like applying for a job without submitting any personal information.

How disingenuous can you get? You, like many here, seem to think that an investigation somehow automatically makes Kavanaugh guilty. It just sounds to me that despite your protestation "oh I totally want an investigation", you're worried about what a look into his background will find.
Ringo

I'm only pointing out that his innocence or guilt can only be established by Law through the Judicial System - not the Senate. How is that disingenuous?

 

[Ringo84]

I'm only pointing out that his innocence or guilt can only be established by Law through the Judicial System - not the Senate.

Which the Senate and the president ask - or should ask - the judicial system to investigate, especially if it's a nominee to the Supreme Court, and even more especially when it's these kind of allegations.

It's not an unfair point to make, but it takes too much of the control of this situation out of the hands of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The GOP is just scared of what an investigation will find.
Ringo

 

[HannahT]

You should look into what proof means.

There is no proof anywhere right now.

Dr. Ford made an allegation - YES. She named people that were around that night, and even her childhood friend claims she has never met Judge Kavanaugh before. So, she can't provide anything. The remaining can't provide her with anything either.

This woman is being used up, and she will be dragged through the mud during this hearing. She doesn't even provide enough information for a decent police investigation to be started to go anywhere of relevance. DEM's could have started an investigation of their own, but they didn't. They could have found these other party goers, and asked some questions. They neglected that too. The neglected their due diligence. I truly believe she was manipulated into this. Do I believe she thinks something happened? Yes. Yet, they need more meat on the bone for the rest of the world. That's the reality of it.

They broke this woman's confidence when they brought into the limelight after her asking them NOT TOO. Then threw both parties - her and Kavanaugh - and their families to the wolves. THIS is a extremely serious accusation to make, and in this time in history? You know you better be crystal clear how you are going to go forward, because you will get eaten up if you don't. Everyone knows this. It's not some secret. The Democrats need more than 'We believe her' to show they have done anything to help her case with competence. She is getting a raw deal here.

Those statements on how they believe her? Well, no doubt that will help pay the mortgage won't it? It certainly isn't going to help her professional career. You may have some people giving her a job, but some she may want and be truly qualified for? They don't touch her with a 10 foot pole, because of the circus that comes with her. Congrats to the dimwits that decided her life for their career and facetime in front of the camera was worth it for her. Somehow I don't think she will agree in time, because they handed her so far a whole lot of nothing.

I hope they have some bombshell ready for the hearing, because the stuff that leaked or was reported so far won't cut the mustard for most people. Neither party will see justice the way this is going.

 

[wing2000]

Does this make Ford's claim more credible?

Not really. Ford's claim stands on its own....different time and place.
It does further suggest that Kavanaugh was not a stranger to parties where alcohol flowed.

Is this an offense that he should be punished for?

No.

 

[ananda]

Which the Senate and the president ask - or should ask - the judicial system to investigate, especially if it's a nominee to the Supreme Court, and even more especially when it's these kind of allegations.

An aggrieved party must initiate proceedings in the Judiciary; this is not the responsibility of the Senate or the President.

It's not an unfair point to make, but it takes too much of the control of this situation out of the hands of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The GOP is just scared of what an investigation will find.
Ringo

My point is irrelevant of party: I am neither pro-GOP nor pro-Democrat; I would say the same if a Democrat was up for nomination. I am pro-rule of law.

 

[Ringo84]

An aggrieved party must initiate proceedings in the Judiciary; this is not the responsibility of the Senate or the President.

Wrong. Donny could ask the FBI to initiate an investigation. He refuses to do so.
Ringo

 

[iluvatar5150]

Not to mention that there are avenues ripe for investigation:
New Yorker’s Mayer: Ramirez Was Not Initial Source—Other Yale Grads Were

huh, that's interesting.

 

[ananda]

Wrong. Donny could ask the FBI to initiate an investigation. He refuses to do so.
Ringo

Strawman.

I was writing about the establishment of innocence or guilt - that is wholly in the hands of the Judiciary.

The Executive branch (along with other authorities) can only gather evidence; they do not establish innocence or guilt.

 

[Ringo84]

There is no proof anywhere right now.

Dr. Ford made an allegation - YES. She named people that were around that night, and even her childhood friend claims she has never met Judge Kavanaugh before. So, she can't provide anything. The remaining can't provide her with anything either.

This woman is being used up, and she will be dragged through the mud during this hearing. She doesn't even provide enough information for a decent police investigation to be started to go anywhere of relevance. DEM's could have started an investigation of their own, but they didn't. They could have found these other party goers, and asked some questions. They neglected that too. The neglected their due diligence. I truly believe she was manipulated into this. Do I believe she thinks something happened? Yes. Yet, they need more meat on the bone for the rest of the world. That's the reality of it.

They broke this woman's confidence when they brought into the limelight after her asking them NOT TOO. Then threw both parties - her and Kavanaugh - and their families to the wolves. THIS is a extremely serious accusation to make, and in this time in history? You know you better be crystal clear how you are going to go forward, because you will get eaten up if you don't. Everyone knows this. It's not some secret. The Democrats need more than 'We believe her' to show they have done anything to help her case with competence. She is getting a raw deal here.

Those statements on how they believe her? Well, no doubt that will help pay the mortgage won't it? It certainly isn't going to help her professional career. You may have some people giving her a job, but some she may want and be truly qualified for? They don't touch her with a 10 foot pole, because of the circus that comes with her. Congrats to the dimwits that decided her life for their career and facetime in front of the camera was worth it for her. Somehow I don't think she will agree in time, because they handed her so far a whole lot of nothing.

I hope they have some bombshell ready for the hearing, because the stuff that leaked or was reported so far won't cut the mustard for most people. Neither party will see justice the way this is going.

Weird to see concern trolling of the victim while at the same time accusing her, in so many words, of being "manipulated" and lying. Not that any of the other arguments in favor of Kavanaugh have made much sense either.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Strawman.

I was writing about the establishment of innocence or guilt - that is wholly in the hands of the Judiciary.

The Executive branch (along with other authorities) can only gather evidence; they do not establish innocence or guilt.

You said that it is out of the power of the president and the Senate to initiate an investigation. I responded that this was untrue. That is not a "straw man"; that is refuting your bad faith arguments.

If you want proof of what I said, though, here it is:

In fact, the FBI could certainly investigate Ford's claim, but only if the White House asks the bureau to do so. She has no authority to request it. Neither does the Senate.

Can the FBI investigate the allegation against Brett Kavanaugh?
Ringo