Brett Michael Kavanaugh and the Roman Catholic Church
In light of the most recent exposure of the Roman Catholic Church Priests-Sex Crimes (NY, Pennsylvania, and Germany) and three billion dollars ($3 billion) paid out of hush monies, is Brett Michael Kavanaugh a product and/or a victim of his religion? It has been proven that the molested molests. If proven true and beyond the statue of limitation is there a bias toward one religion over another? Just holding up a mirror.
Should Kavanaugh continue to coach girl's soccer team, in light of his past behavior in high school? Should Kavanaugh, if confirmed, rule on sex crimes case that comes before him? Is the Catholic Church "too big" or "too holy" to be held accountable for sex-crimes? If perception becomes a reality, the RCC be a black hole that has no bottom.
Trump's Supreme Court nominee (Brett Michael Kavanaugh) is under a cloud for several other things and will be a stain and subsequent laws of America. What can be done to reassure the American people of fairness and decency on the "High Court"? What says ye? CM
Comments
-
The writer of the confidential letter against Trump's Supreme Court nominee (Brett Michael Kavanaugh) is Christine Blasey Ford, a 51-year old research psychologist. Yes, she is a real person. Her story is true. No, she is not looking for money. Yes, she sought help. Her husband is aware of the matter.
Christine Blasey Ford and Brett KavanaughAttempted rape and murder. If you don't believe me, listen when she tells her own story. In my opinion, Brett Michael Kavanaugh, has too much ugliness of the past. Even claiming to be drunk, it still makes Kavanaugh--Unfit! CM
-
Behavior that is nowhere near reality or proven. This never happened.
-
@reformed said:
Behavior that is nowhere near reality or proven. This never happened.How do you know "this never happened"?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Behavior that is nowhere near reality or proven. This never happened.How do you know "this never happened"?
Eyewitnesses say it never happened, no proof. So I guess I don't "know" it didn't happen, but if you aren't going to be a hypocrite then you should also attack @C_M_ for saying it absolutely did happen.
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Behavior that is nowhere near reality or proven. This never happened.How do you know "this never happened"?
Eyewitnesses say it never happened, no proof. So I guess I don't "know" it didn't happen, but if you aren't going to be a hypocrite then you should also attack @C_M_ for saying it absolutely did happen.
The only eyewitness of whom I am aware was the other then-teenager involved in the alleged incident, allegedly also very intoxicated at the time. Alcohol can affect memory.
We don't know that this incident happened. But we do know...
- Statistically, women who make this kind of allegation tell the truth much more often than they lie.
- There are therapist's notes from six years ago that report woman making the allegation's speaking of an incident during her high school years perpetrated by boys who eventually gained prominence in Washington.
- The woman making the allegation made first contact, via an anonymous tip line, with the Washington Post in July, BEFORE President Trump nominated Kavanaugh.
- The woman making the allegation is a university professor in California, which very likely means she is a highly educated and successful person.
I don't think we know whether the incident happened. If CM believes we know that it did, then I disagree with him. At this moment, as you acknowledge, reformed, we also don't know that it didn't happen.
An investigation is in order. The professor, Judge Kavanaugh, and other pertinent witnesses all deserve to be heard.
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Behavior that is nowhere near reality or proven. This never happened.How do you know "this never happened"?
Eyewitnesses say it never happened, no proof. So I guess I don't "know" it didn't happen, but if you aren't going to be a hypocrite then you should also attack @C_M_ for saying it absolutely did happen.
Now, Reformed, whose trying to stir up trouble? Why are you encouraging Bill to "attack" me? Bill doesn't appear to be your or anyone's human-pit bull, to attack at command. I Shared the recent news report. Something happened. Why don't you wait until it can be proven once and for all? Until then, don't stir up trouble here in CD. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Now, Reformed, whose trying to stir up trouble? Why are you encouraging Bill to "attack" me? I Shared the recent news report. Something happened. Why don't you wait until it can be proven once and for all? Until then, don't stir up trouble here in CD. CMCM, on my first reading of his post, I didn't notice reformed's encouragement to "attack" you if I didn't want to be a hypocrite. I didn't "attack" reformed and I certainly intended no "attack" on you in my previous post. No one needs to attack anyone for us to discuss the significance and direction of this troubling new development.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
Now, Reformed, whose trying to stir up trouble? Why are you encouraging Bill to "attack" me? I Shared the recent news report. Something happened. Why don't you wait until it can be proven once and for all? Until then, don't stir up trouble here in CD. CMCM, on my first reading of his post, I didn't notice reformed's encouragement to "attack" you if I didn't want to be a hypocrite. I didn't "attack" reformed and I certainly intended no "attack" on you in my previous post. No one needs to attack anyone for us to discuss the significance and direction of this troubling new development.
So be it. CM
-
If @Bill_Coley doesn't think it was an attack that's ridiculous.
-
@reformed said:
If @Bill_Coley doesn't think it was an attack that's ridiculous.I guess you will be taking that up with him. CM
-
@reformed said:
If @Bill_Coley doesn't think it was an attack that's ridiculous.I have no idea what this sentence means, reformed. Please explain it.
-
In your pure opinion, is it possible that Judge Kavanaugh has been molested as a child? My reason for suggesting such, see above. What says ye? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
In your pure opinion, is it possible that Judge Kavanaugh has been molested as a child? My reason for suggesting such, see above. What says ye? CMOf course it is possible, though I don't see how that is relevant.
-
The President needs to request the FBI to open the case and do a thorough investigation. Trump has change to do the right thing. Kavanaugh or not a conservative will be on the high court. Do the right thing Mr. Trump.
Kavanaugh needs to withdraw. He's too dirty at this point. Attempted rape and murder are too much for the country to live with at this time. Affirming Kavanaugh will lower the moral authority of the court. This is equivalent to putting Trump on the Supreme Court minus intellect. America, the world is watching, don't strike out. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
The President needs to request the FBI to open the case and do a thorough investigation. Trump has change to do the right thing. Kavanaugh or not a conservative will be on the high court. Do the right thing Mr. Trump.
Kavanaugh needs to withdraw. He's too dirty at this point. Attempted rape and murder are too much for the country to live with at this time. Affirming Kavanaugh will lower the moral authority of the court. This is equivalent to putting Trump on the Supreme Court minus intellect. America, the world is watching, don't strike out. CM
Innocent until proven guilty. Statute of limitations have passed. It is he said/she said. He has passed through FBI checks numerous times. The Democrats sat on this. Her story does not match the notes from 2012 with her therapist. She is suspect.
Why do you automatically believe the accuser? What makes her the truth teller automatically?
-
The Kavanaugh vote delayed.
Kavanaugh credibility questioned.
Kavanaugh denied attempted rape charges.
The Senate calls Kavanaugh's accuser to testify.
Why Trump will not ask the FBI to investigate for the new hearings? What's the rush and what do they have to hide. I told you the Republicans were turning up the attacks on Kavanaugh to get Trump.Let the truth be told. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
The Kavanaugh vote delayed.Yes
Kavanaugh credibility questioned.
I haven't seen evidence of this yet.
Kavanaugh denied attempted rape charges.
Correct
The Senate calls Kavanaugh's accuser to testify.
Yes
Why Trump will not ask the FBI to investigate for the new hearings? What's the rush and what do they have to hide. I told you the Republicans were turning up the attacks on Kavanaugh to get Trump.
Why would Trump ask the FBI to investigate? What do you propose they investigate? They saw the letter and decided there was nothing to pursue.
Let the truth be told. CM
It ain't coming from you, that's for sure.
-
Where are the First Lady and the First daughter to speak up for Dr. B. Ford to get a fair hearing? Investigate and then she can talk. What's the Trump administration afraid of, if they think she's not telling the truth. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Where are the First Lady and the First daughter to speak up for Dr. B. Ford to get a fair hearing? Investigate and then she can talk. What's the Trump administration afraid of, if they think she's not telling the truth. CMFirst of all, the Trump ADMINISTRATION has nothing to do with it. Congress (particularly the Senate) does. Second, Senator Grassley has already scheduled a hearing for next week. Kavanaugh has agreed. However, the accuser will not return their phone calls. Third, her attorney said that her client doesn't think this should disqualify Kavanagh from the Supreme Court nomination.
Now stop spreading misinformation.
-
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
Where are the First Lady and the First daughter to speak up for Dr. B. Ford to get a fair hearing? Investigate and then she can talk. What's the Trump administration afraid of, if they think she's not telling the truth. CMFirst of all, the Trump ADMINISTRATION has nothing to do with it. Congress (particularly the Senate) does. Second, Senator Grassley has already scheduled a hearing for next week. Kavanaugh has agreed. However, the accuser will not return their phone calls. Third, her attorney said that her client doesn't think this should disqualify Kavanagh from the Supreme Court nomination.
Now stop spreading misinformation.
UPDATE: Lawyers for the accuser have come up with a lame excuse that their client thought that Kavanaugh and her would be at the same table which was never the case. This is getting dumber by the moment and anyone can see right through it.
Also, they now want a full FBI investigation. Well the FBI has already declined because there is nothing to investigate.
-
Because facts matter, reformed:
@reformed said:
Third, her attorney said that her client doesn't think this should disqualify Kavanagh from the Supreme Court nomination.I found reference to this talking about on the right wing website Townhall.com. When I noticed in the video snippet they quoted how abruptly they truncated attorney Debra Katz's comments on this matter, I figured they were leaving something out. Sure enough.
Blasey Ford's attorney did NOT say "her client doesn't think this should disqualify Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court nomination." Watch the relevant exchange in THIS INTERVIEW WITH CBS THIS MORNING, starting at about the 1:07 mark. Attorney Debra Katz says ONLY that her client "has not taken the position" that this should disqualify Kavanaugh from the Court. That is: She has not expressed an opinion on the question. At about the 1:25 mark, the attorney says her client believes the behavior she alleges "bears on (Kavanaugh's) character."
Lawyers for the accuser have come up with a lame excuse that their client thought that Kavanaugh and her would be at the same table which was never the case. This is getting dumber by the moment and anyone can see right through it.
It made no sense to me that Blasey Ford's attorneys believed their client would sit at the same table, at the same time, with Kavanaugh. But if for some reason they actually believed that was to be the layout for the hearing, for them it would not have seemed like a "lame excuse." Point of fact: This was NEVER going to be a reason for the hearing's delay.
Also, they now want a full FBI investigation. Well the FBI has already declined because there is nothing to investigate.
I think it can be argued that the FBI did NOT say there is "nothing to investigate." In a statement, a Bureau spokesperson at best said there is no role for the FBI given that the claim "does not involve any potential federal crime."
"The FBI does not make any judgment about the credibility or significance of any allegation. The purpose of a background investigation is to determine whether the nominee could pose a risk to the national security of the United States. The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime. The FBI's role in such matters is to provide information for the use of the decision makers."
But even the FBI's statement is questionable. Why did the FBI investigate Anita Hill's allegations back in 1991? Her claims were not nearly as consequential as are Blasey Ford's, and also "did not involve any potential federal crime." I know the FBI investigated Hill's claims. I think President George H.W. Bush ordered/requested that investigation. Why couldn't President Trump do the same today?
And why wouldn't you want every bit of information possible about Blasey Ford's allegation? The FBI wouldn't have to make any judgments about what happened. It would simply interview people with information about the incident under oath and pass that information along to the committee.... Like the third person in the room that night - Mark Judge. The guy who wrote a book called "Wasted" in which he detailed his abuse of alcohol, including during his high school years, a memoir that includes information about the "100 kegs" ambition to which both he and Kavanaugh referred in their yearbook pages; a book that references someone named "Bart O’Kavanaugh” who “puked in someone’s car” and “passed out on his way back from a party.”... Not that anything about those references is in ANY way consistent with Blasey Ford's allegation that Judge and Kavanaugh were "stumbling drunk" at the time of the alleged assault.
Judge says he has "no memory" of the incident Blasey Ford describes (some of those "100 kegs" at work?) and doesn't want to testify before the Judiciary Committee. So what? The committee should subpoena him, or at least the FBI should interview him under oath.
Now stop spreading misinformation.
Good idea, reformed.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Because facts matter, reformed:@reformed said:
Third, her attorney said that her client doesn't think this should disqualify Kavanagh from the Supreme Court nomination.I found reference to this talking about on the right wing website Townhall.com. When I noticed in the video snippet they quoted how abruptly they truncated attorney Debra Katz's comments on this matter, I figured they were leaving something out. Sure enough.
Blasey Ford's attorney did NOT say "her client doesn't think this should disqualify Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court nomination." Watch the relevant exchange in THIS INTERVIEW WITH CBS THIS MORNING, starting at about the 1:07 mark. Attorney Debra Katz says ONLY that her client "has not taken the position" that this should disqualify Kavanaugh from the Court. That is: She has not expressed an opinion on the question. At about the 1:25 mark, the attorney says her client believes the behavior she alleges "bears on (Kavanaugh's) character."
Lawyers for the accuser have come up with a lame excuse that their client thought that Kavanaugh and her would be at the same table which was never the case. This is getting dumber by the moment and anyone can see right through it.
It made no sense to me that Blasey Ford's attorneys believed their client would sit at the same table, at the same time, with Kavanaugh. But if for some reason they actually believed that was to be the layout for the hearing, for them it would not have seemed like a "lame excuse." Point of fact: This was NEVER going to be a reason for the hearing's delay.
Also, they now want a full FBI investigation. Well the FBI has already declined because there is nothing to investigate.
I think it can be argued that the FBI did NOT say there is "nothing to investigate." In a statement, a Bureau spokesperson at best said there is no role for the FBI given that the claim "does not involve any potential federal crime."
"The FBI does not make any judgment about the credibility or significance of any allegation. The purpose of a background investigation is to determine whether the nominee could pose a risk to the national security of the United States. The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime. The FBI's role in such matters is to provide information for the use of the decision makers."
But even the FBI's statement is questionable. Why did the FBI investigate Anita Hill's allegations back in 1991? Her claims were not nearly as consequential as are Blasey Ford's, and also "did not involve any potential federal crime." I know the FBI investigated Hill's claims. I think President George H.W. Bush ordered/requested that investigation. Why couldn't President Trump do the same today?
And why wouldn't you want every bit of information possible about Blasey Ford's allegation? The FBI wouldn't have to make any judgments about what happened. It would simply interview people with information about the incident under oath and pass that information along to the committee.... Like the third person in the room that night - Mark Judge. The guy who wrote a book called "Wasted" in which he detailed his abuse of alcohol, including during his high school years, a memoir that includes information about the "100 kegs" ambition to which both he and Kavanaugh referred in their yearbook pages; a book that references someone named "Bart O’Kavanaugh” who “puked in someone’s car” and “passed out on his way back from a party.”... Not that anything about those references is in ANY way consistent with Blasey Ford's allegation that Judge and Kavanaugh were "stumbling drunk" at the time of the alleged assault.
Judge says he has "no memory" of the incident Blasey Ford describes (some of those "100 kegs" at work?) and doesn't want to testify before the Judiciary Committee. So what? The committee should subpoena him, or at least the FBI should interview him under oath.
Now stop spreading misinformation.
Good idea, reformed.
I've not spread mis-information. I reported facts.
That being said, this whole thing is highly suspect. Why would she not be jumping at the opportunity (like she said she would) to testify? All of a sudden she is going to be under oath and is now getting cold feet? Smells like this didn't happen at all and it is all made up and it blew up in their faces.
-
@reformed said:
I've not spread mis-information. I reported facts.In your previous post, you claimed Blasey Ford's "attorney said that her client doesn't think this should disqualify Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court nomination." Her attorney did NOT say that. She said only that her client had not taken the position that this should disqualify him. The fact that Blasey Ford hasn't taken the position publicly doesn't mean she doesn't hold to, or won't eventually take, the position that Kavanaugh should be disqualified. Note also the attorney's report of Blasey Ford's view of the commentary about Kavanaugh's character the alleged behavior makes.
Whether Blasey Ford actually believes Kavanaugh's alleged conduct should disqualify him from the Supreme Court is not relevant to my point. Your claim that her attorney said Blasey Ford thinks it should not disqualify him was inaccurate and misleading, at best, which in my view makes it misinformation, not facts.
That being said, this whole thing is highly suspect. Why would she not be jumping at the opportunity (like she said she would) to testify? All of a sudden she is going to be under oath and is now getting cold feet? Smells like this didn't happen at all and it is all made up and it blew up in their faces.
I think she wants the facts of the matter to be determined - as much as is possible - by an independent, objective agency, and not by the partisan tribes of the Senate Judiciary Committee, many members of which have already expressed their conclusions, some in support of her and some against her. In possession of the available facts, the Committee tribes would then question witnesses in pursuit of additional details or to make their partisan points, before making a final determination as to the consequences of those facts.
What's your objection to the Committee's having as many facts as possible in hand before they question Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, and others?
What's your objection to hearing under oath from the third person alleged to have been in the room at that party, Mark Judge? Do you find it at all relevant that his personal history and apparent references to Kavanaugh as laid out in his memoir are wholly consistent with the Blasey Ford's allegation?
Are you at all curious that Judge doesn't want to testify under oath? If that incident didn't happen - if in fact he truly doesn't have a memory of the incident Blasey Ford recounts - then why doesn't he want to go under oath and say so?
And who cares if a potential witness doesn't want to testify under oath?! The Committee can simply subpoena him.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
I've not spread mis-information. I reported facts.In your previous post, you claimed Blasey Ford's "attorney said that her client doesn't think this should disqualify Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court nomination." Her attorney did NOT say that. She said only that her client had not taken the position that this should disqualify him. The fact that Blasey Ford hasn't taken the position publicly doesn't mean she doesn't hold to, or won't eventually take, the position that Kavanaugh should be disqualified. Note also the attorney's report of Blasey Ford's view of the commentary about Kavanaugh's character the alleged behavior makes.
Whether Blasey Ford actually believes Kavanaugh's alleged conduct should disqualify him from the Supreme Court is not relevant to my point. Your claim that her attorney said Blasey Ford thinks it should not disqualify him was inaccurate and misleading, at best, which in my view makes it misinformation, not facts.
That being said, this whole thing is highly suspect. Why would she not be jumping at the opportunity (like she said she would) to testify? All of a sudden she is going to be under oath and is now getting cold feet? Smells like this didn't happen at all and it is all made up and it blew up in their faces.
I think she wants the facts of the matter to be determined - as much as is possible - by an independent, objective agency, and not by the partisan tribes of the Senate Judiciary Committee, many members of which have already expressed their conclusions, some in support of her and some against her. In possession of the available facts, the Committee tribes would then question witnesses in pursuit of additional details or to make their partisan points, before making a final determination as to the consequences of those facts.
Little late for that don't you think? Statute of limitations and all...she shouldn't have waited so long. It's pathetic.
What's your objection to the Committee's having as many facts as possible in hand before they question Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, and others?
What facts? It is he said/she said.
What's your objection to hearing under oath from the third person alleged to have been in the room at that party, Mark Judge? Do you find it at all relevant that his personal history and apparent references to Kavanaugh as laid out in his memoir are wholly consistent with the Blasey Ford's allegation?
Who also denies the allegation. Again, he said/she said.
Are you at all curious that Judge doesn't want to testify under oath? If that incident didn't happen - if in fact he truly doesn't have a memory of the incident Blasey Ford recounts - then why doesn't he want to go under oath and say so?
I wouldn't want to go before that Democrat circus either.
-
@reformed said:
Little late for that don't you think? Statute of limitations and all...she shouldn't have waited so long. It's pathetic.
You contend that it's a "little late" for the gathering of as many facts as possible about an alleged sexual assault? Do you seriously believe it can EVER be a "little late" to learn about incidents of sexual assault, if in fact they happened, even if the statute of limitations has expired?
Your comment about her "pathetic" waiting "so long" to come forward attests to a significant lack of understanding of the dynamics of sexual assault. I encourage you to read more broadly than you have to-date about the impact, both short- and long term, on victims of sexual assault. Additional investigation of the issue, I believe, will convince you that it is NOT AT ALL SURPRISING, let alone "pathetic," that she didn't come forward with this incident until 2012 (well before the Kavanaugh nomination, by the way).
What facts? It is he said/she said.
First, it's not he said/she said. At bare minimum it's he said/she said/he said. Second, there are other facts that could be gathered - from Blasey Ford's husband and therapist, for example.
Who also denies the allegation. Again, he said/she said.
He says only that he has "no memory" of the incident Blasey Ford describes, which is not much of a denial that the incident ever happened. Given his self-confessed vigorous abuse of alcohol during his high school years, I doubt that he can definitively deny that ANY event happened.
But once again I ask: If the incident didn't happen, why doesn't he want to make his denial under oath? If I knew I didn't do something (remember, she's accusing Judge of being an accessory to this assault!) I would be on the first flight to DC to testify under oath while attached to a lie detector whose real time results could be displayed in the lower right hand corner of everyone's TV screen. But Mike Judge refuses. Why?
I wouldn't want to go before that Democrat circus either.
So what? Do you afford the luxury of such choice in criminal trials? Those who think their appearance in court could produce a "circus" don't have to testify? If the Committee wants to subpoena Mike Judge, they can, and he will have to comply. Now the Committee WON'T subpoena him, because they want to constrain the hearing to your he said/she said structure; obviously it's MUCH easier to deny Blasey Ford's accusation that way.
And if she's making this up, why in the world would she assert the participation of a SECOND student, one whose denial she had to have had to known would be immediate and forceful (though in this case it wasn't!) and therefore provide her critics with an instant rebuttal of her allegation? Don't you have to acknowledge that if she were going to make this up, it would have been FAR better for her to limit her story to include ONLY Kavanaugh - i.e. to make it precisely a "he said/she said" incident (only one "he")?
Bottom Line: In the name of transparency and full disclosure, why NOT ask the FBI to gather as many facts as possible about this incident? What's the harm of committee members' having MORE facts upon which to base their decision?
No response to my claim that your summary of the attorney's word was inaccurate and misleading? Does your silence on the matter report your acknowledgement that your claim was in fact misleading?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Little late for that don't you think? Statute of limitations and all...she shouldn't have waited so long. It's pathetic.
You contend that it's a "little late" for the gathering of as many facts as possible about an alleged sexual assault? Do you seriously believe it can EVER be a "little late" to learn about incidents of sexual assault, if in fact they happened, even if the statute of limitations has expired?
Yes. Not to mention you can't go review the scene, etc...
Your comment about her "pathetic" waiting "so long" to come forward attests to a significant lack of understanding of the dynamics of sexual assault. I encourage you to read more broadly than you have to-date about the impact, both short- and long term, on victims of sexual assault. Additional investigation of the issue, I believe, will convince you that it is NOT AT ALL SURPRISING, let alone "pathetic," that she didn't come forward with this incident until 2012 (well before the Kavanaugh nomination, by the way).
And then didn't do anything about it. That's what is pathetic. And her story now, doesn't match her story she told her therapist. AND her story to the therapist never included Kavanaugh's name. HIGHLY SUSPECT.
What facts? It is he said/she said.
First, it's not he said/she said. At bare minimum it's he said/she said/he said. Second, there are other facts that could be gathered - from Blasey Ford's husband and therapist, for example.
Technically those wouldn't be facts other than hearsay. Neither of them were there and would have been told decades after the fact. That being said, we do have the information from the therapist and it doesn't match her current story. She says her therapist is mistaken....
Who also denies the allegation. Again, he said/she said.
He says only that he has "no memory" of the incident Blasey Ford describes, which is not much of a denial that the incident ever happened. Given his self-confessed vigorous abuse of alcohol during his high school years, I doubt that he can definitively deny that ANY event happened.
Fair enough, but that still doesn't change he said/she said.
But once again I ask: If the incident didn't happen, why doesn't he want to make his denial under oath? If I knew I didn't do something (remember, she's accusing Judge of being an accessory to this assault!) I would be on the first flight to DC to testify under oath while attached to a lie detector whose real time results could be displayed in the lower right hand corner of everyone's TV screen. But Mike Judge refuses. Why?
I wouldn't want to go before that Democrat circus either.
So what? Do you afford the luxury of such choice in criminal trials? Those who think their appearance in court could produce a "circus" don't have to testify? If the Committee wants to subpoena Mike Judge, they can, and he will have to comply. Now the Committee WON'T subpoena him, because they want to constrain the hearing to your he said/she said structure; obviously it's MUCH easier to deny Blasey Ford's accusation that way.
This isn't a criminal trial nor a non-partisan objective court.
And if she's making this up, why in the world would she assert the participation of a SECOND student, one whose denial she had to have had to known would be immediate and forceful (though in this case it wasn't!) and therefore provide her critics with an instant rebuttal of her allegation? Don't you have to acknowledge that if she were going to make this up, it would have been FAR better for her to limit her story to include ONLY Kavanaugh - i.e. to make it precisely a "he said/she said" incident (only one "he")?
Bottom Line: In the name of transparency and full disclosure, why NOT ask the FBI to gather as many facts as possible about this incident? What's the harm of committee members' having MORE facts upon which to base their decision?
Because all the facts that can be gathered lie with her and Kavanaugh and Judge. If she won't come forward she needs to go away.
No response to my claim that your summary of the attorney's word was inaccurate and misleading? Does your silence on the matter report your acknowledgement that your claim was in fact misleading?
No. If you don't take that position you must not hold to it, otherwise you would say so, or don't really believe it.
-
@reformed said:
Yes. Not to mention you can't go review the scene, etc...Your lack of concern for the collection of as much truth as possible about alleged incidents of sexual assault is disappointing, but not surprising.
And then didn't do anything about it. That's what is pathetic. And her story now, doesn't match her story she told her therapist. AND her story to the therapist never included Kavanaugh's name. HIGHLY SUSPECT.
Your apparent lack of awareness of the profoundly damaging impact of incidents of sexual assault on its victims is also disappointing but not surprising.
As far as I can tell, the only significant discrepancy between the telling of events Blasey Ford gave to the Washington Post and the notes of her therapist is the number of people in the room with her at the time of the alleged assault: to the Post, she claimed two involved, while the therapist's notes report four.
You're claiming that it's "HIGHLY SUSPECT" if a person remembers, in reports offered six years apart - the first one, in the inherently stressful setting of couples therapy; the second one in the inherently stressful setting of disclosing an incident of alleged sexual assault to a national newspaper - first four, then two persons involved in an obviously traumatic incident that happened 30+ years ago? How "SUSPECT" would you have considered it had the therapist's notes reported three, rather four, others involved?
Technically those wouldn't be facts other than hearsay. Neither of them were there and would have been told decades after the fact. That being said, we do have the information from the therapist and it doesn't match her current story. She says her therapist is mistaken....
See above.
Orrin Hatch says Kavanaugh told him he wasn't even at the party where Blasey Ford claims the assault occurred. The problem with Kavanaugh's assertion is that Blasey Ford has NEVER specified - actually, doesn't remember - the date of the party to which she's referring. How can Kavanaugh assert that he wasn't at the party when he can't possibly know which party he's saying he wasn't at?
Fair enough, but that still doesn't change he said/she said.
Remember, Judge's memoir and their respective high school yearbooks suggest that Kavanaugh ALSO had more than his share of encounters with too much alcohol. If memory problems can afflict ALL alcohol abusers - and I think they can - why isn't it possible that Kavanugh's lack of memory of this incident is due to alcohol use, not an accurate memory?
This isn't a criminal trial nor a non-partisan objective court.
The truth isn't partisan. If he's convinced of the truth, then why not tell it under oath (a state which is not partisan, either)?
Because all the facts that can be gathered lie with her and Kavanaugh and Judge. If she won't come forward she needs to go away.
You name Judge as a source of facts. We might have common ground! Do you agree with me that all three sources of truth should testify under oath, and not just by public statement or newspaper stories?
No. If you don't take that position you must not hold to it, otherwise you would say so, or don't really believe it.
I don't know what this sentence means. Please explain.
One other matter: The state of Maryland, in which the alleged incident took place, does NOT have a statute of limitation when it comes to felony sexual assault crimes. Hence, it's possible that your and others' objections to Ford's "old" allegation of a potential crime that could no longer be prosecuted are unfounded.
-
Tonight, former 2008 McCain campaign chief strategist Steve Schmidt tweeted this:
"Riddle me this. If someone is lying (Dr.Ford ) and they know that lying to the FBI is a crime, why would they be asking for an FBI investigation? If a sitting Federal Judge (Kavanaugh) is accused of something he denies with his reputation at stake why wouldn’t he demand one?"
And a reporter for Bloomberg named Steven T. Dennis asked this question, also via Twitter:
"Hm. If both Kavanaugh and Ford testify under oath Monday and tell opposite stories, one could be committing the federal crime of lying to Congress. Would there be precedent for FBI to then investigate?"
Any answers, reformed?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Tonight, former 2008 McCain campaign chief strategist Steve Schmidt tweeted this:"Riddle me this. If someone is lying (Dr.Ford ) and they know that lying to the FBI is a crime, why would they be asking for an FBI investigation? If a sitting Federal Judge (Kavanaugh) is accused of something he denies with his reputation at stake why wouldn’t he demand one?"
And a reporter for Bloomberg named Steven T. Dennis asked this question, also via Twitter:
"Hm. If both Kavanaugh and Ford testify under oath Monday and tell opposite stories, one could be committing the federal crime of lying to Congress. Would there be precedent for FBI to then investigate?"
Any answers, reformed?
- They know the FBI won't investigate it so they have nothing to lose by demanding it.
- I don't know about the second one.
-
@reformed said:
- They know the FBI won't investigate it so they have nothing to lose by demanding it.
The FBI would "investigate it" were the president to order them to do so (cf. Bush 41's order of an FBI inquiry into Anita Hill's charges against Clarence Thomas in 1991). Presented with a presidential order, the FBI would have no choice. So if the conclusion of your assertion here is to bear any resemblance to the truth, its premise must be changed: "They know President Trump won't ask the FBI to investigate it, so they have nothing to lose."
And if President Trump won't ask the FBI to investigate, why doesn't Judge Kavanaugh ask for such a probe so as to clear his name?... Because if he did, the president would face enormous public and political pressure to order one, pressure to which the president would likely surrender. And an actual FBI investigation of Blasey Ford's accusations is an outcome NO ONE in Camp Kavanaugh - on the Hill, in the White House, or in the Kavanaugh household - wants.
- I don't know about the second one.
But what about the larger point the reporter makes? If both the judge and the professor appear and tell diametrically opposite stories of what happened - i.e. SHE: "I swear under oath and beyond doubt that Brett Kavanaugh attacked me;" HE: "I swear under oath and beyond doubt that I did not attack her" - then at least one of them will not be telling the truth. In that case, would you support a formal investigation into possible perjury charges against whoever was found to be lying?
