What's new
By:

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zombie said:
I feel like this detail about the Martinez accusation is getting lost in the noise a bit. From the New Yorker magazine article:

The classmate said that he is “one-hundred-per-cent sure” that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He independently recalled many of the same details offered by Ramirez, including that a male student had encouraged Kavanaugh as he exposed himself. The classmate, like Ramirez, recalled that the party took place in a common room on the first floor in Entryway B of Lawrance Hall, during their freshman year. “I’ve known this all along,” he said. “It’s been on my mind all these years when his name came up. It was a big deal.” The story stayed with him, he said, because it was disturbing and seemed outside the bounds of typically acceptable behavior, even during heavy drinking at parties on campus. The classmate said that he had been shocked, but not necessarily surprised, because the social group to which Kavanaugh belonged often drank to excess. He recalled Kavanaugh as “relatively shy” until he drank, at which point he said that Kavanaugh could become “aggressive and even belligerent.”
Click to expand...
iLMonU
 
Zombie said:
The FBI can't investigate unless directed to reopen Kavanaugh's background check by the white house, which they can absolutely do.

The very nature of the crime means that the vast majority of sexual assaults take place without second hand witnesses.

Now, like I said I don't think he should be locked up, but her testimony in addition to the second accusation, which does include independently confirmed details, should be enough for us to say, yeah maybe this guy shouldn't get a lifetime appointment.
Click to expand...

But...but I thought y’all didn’t want Trump to tell the FBI what to do?! I guess that’s just situational.

Typically everything sexually is second hand. Fortunately, the accuser gave us 4 first hand accounts. Each one of them has, under oath, denied it.

As for the second accuser...the New York Times wouldn’t even run it. Again, another situation with multiple parties present and zero first hand corroboration. The accuser herself recently had to be convinced it happened. To call it credible seems premature.

Again, despite stories having multiple first hand witnesses, some of them the friends of the accusers, we have absolutely zero first hand corroboration of the stories. Even you have to admit that’s odd.
 
JustTheTip said:
But...but I thought y’all didn’t want Trump to tell the FBI what to do?! I guess that’s just situational.

Typically everything sexually is second hand. Fortunately, the accuser gave us 4 first hand accounts. Each one of them has, under oath, denied it.

As for the second accuser...the New York Times wouldn’t even run it. Again, another situation with multiple parties present and zero first hand corroboration. The accuser herself recently had to be convinced it happened. To call it credible seems premature.

Again, despite stories having multiple first hand witnesses, some of them the friends of the accusers, we have absolutely zero first hand corroboration of the stories. Even you have to admit that’s odd.
Click to expand...
Don't be a dumbass, of course it's appropriate for the president to have the FBI do background checks on its Supreme Court nominees. That's standard practice. I don't know that it's all that odd that Ford doesn't have any corroborating witnesses, half of the people allegedly at the party are implicated in the accusation (all of them are in the case of Martinez), and everyone was drinking. My understanding wasn't that Martinez wasn't sure she got assaulted, she just wasn't sure it was Brett. Other students at Yale who heard about this happening have pointed the finger at him, and independently offered up corroborating details. His own college roommate found it plausible. Again, I agree this is not enough evidence for a criminal trial, but Supreme Court noms have been pulled for far, far less.
 
Last edited:
Zombie said:
Don't be a dumbass, of course it's appropriate for the president to have the FBI do background checks on its Supreme Court nominees. That's standard practice. I don't know that it's all that odd that Ford doesn't have any corroborating witnesses, half of the people allegedly at the party are implicated in the accusation (all of them are in the case of Martinez), and everyone was drinking. My understanding wasn't that Martinez wasn't sure she got assaulted, she just wasn't sure it was Brett. Other students at Yale who heard about this happening have pointed the finger at him, and independently offered up corroborating details. His own college roommate found it plausible. Again, I agree this is not enough evidence for a criminal trial, but Supreme Court noms have been pulled for far, far less.
Click to expand...

It is standard practice for the FBI to do a background check! They already did one! They have said they’re not going to investigate this. The only person unwilling to go under oath so far has been...Ford.

Ford’s story just doesn’t add up. The people she said were there, deny it. Including her friend. Her friend, who is not implicated in anything. For there to be an investigation there needs to be credibility.
 
Trump needs to not tell the FBI who or what to investigate or not investigate!!!

Trump needs to tell the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh!!!
 
JustTheTip said:
Not one witness that Judge has mentioned can corroborate the story, not even her lifelong friend. There were supposedly 5-6 people at this house party, and yet all of them say it wasn’t at their house, and it wasn’t at Judge’s house. I always want to believe the accuser, but there has to be some semblance of proof or evidence. In this case, there is absolutely none. Not one first hand witness. Not one.
Click to expand...

I think you mean not one witness that Ford has mentioned? Anyway, Ford said there was one eyewitness. Mark Judge. He denies being a witness to any such thing. He also says he does not want to testify. But what makes him so special that he cannot be called to testify via a subpoena? Republicans will not call him via subpoena. Personally, I can't prove it, but I suspect he does not want to testify because he does not want to lie under oath. If he's telling the truth, inconvenience the poor man. Make him make his statement under oath.
 
JustTheTip said:
It is standard practice for the FBI to do a background check! They already did one! They have said they’re not going to investigate this. The only person unwilling to go under oath so far has been...Ford.

Ford’s story just doesn’t add up. The people she said were there, deny it. Including her friend. Her friend, who is not implicated in anything. For there to be an investigation there needs to be credibility.
Click to expand...
And the White House, as has been done before, can order the FBI to reopen their background check investigation. Learn some history.

Her friend doesn't deny it, she actually says she doesn't recall it, not surprising after 35 years, after all no one's memory is perfect. What I don't understand, is if you think Ford is making it up, why would she add a bunch of details that complicate things for her, like admitting to being drunk, placing another witness in the room. Someone who was just making **** up wouldn't do that.
 
JustTheTip said:
I try to wait for facts before I villainize people, but you do you.
Click to expand...

That Ford has described what happened to her is a fact. If you are waiting for DNA evidence, there will be none. Outside of that, what sort of facts are you waiting for?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page
Back
Top