(09-19-2018 09:33 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 08:40 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 08:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 04:56 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  There were no witnesses to this so what does anyone investigate.

Wasn't his buddy, Mark Judge, supposedly there? Although he is refusing at this point to come forward, but still put forth a statement saying he doesn't remember anything happening. If he doesn't remember anything happening, why is he afraid to tell that under oath?

Prof. Ford says Mark Judge was there. Mark Judge says he wasn’t there. So it’s only “supposedly” if you already believe Ford and disbelieve Judge.

Also: Mark Judge has published at least two books — 1997 and 2005, I believe — describing how he was a severe alcoholic even in high school, prone to black-outs and unable to recall events after the fact. These admissions have been part of the public record for many years and would obviously cast a cloud over any testimony he might give. I suspect he was identified as the Other Guy In The Room for precisely that reason.

And besides which, does Mark Judge have a greater obligation to go under oath than Christine Ford? She certainly hasn’t done that yet. We shall see if she does on Monday, or not.

All valid points...and to me...point to the clear need for an investigative body to look at this before anyone testifies before the committee. ALL parties should be afforded that courtesy.

And I've never said I believe or don't believe anybody at this point. There needs to be an investigation and all parties involved need to be heard on the record. We waited months to get Gorsuch while only having 8 justices and we still have 9 bodies on the court currently. There is no rush needed here.

Investigate what? She doesn't even remember when or where it happened.

I think you stole $50 million from me in 1990 or 1991 or maybe 1992, but I'm not sure I ever actually had $50 million. Let's have an investigation so we can both be heard on the record.

You put all parties allegedly involved; Kavanaugh, Judge and the Professor, under oath and have them tell their stories on the record. Then you have them testify before the senate committee. If nothing comes of it, you move on with the vote in the Senate.

(09-19-2018 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 04:56 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  There were no witnesses to this so what does anyone investigate.

And she doesn't remember enough detail for an investigation anyway. No date or even a year, no location. There is no crime if you don't have a date. If a prosecutor hands down an indictment saying a murder occurred in November 2014 and it happened in January 2015, you have to find not guilty.

This is not a criminal trial.

Then why would the FBI need to get involved when they have already checked out his background thoroughly?

This is nothing other than a bald attempt to delay the nomination. Whether there is any truth or not, the sole purpose is to delay, which discredits the accuser.

To interview all the parties involved. The I in FBI stands for Investigation. And until this is shown not to be a credible allegation, this nomination should not go forward. You would say the exact same thing if the parties were reversed, so don't even bother denying it.

There is nothing to investigate.

I think she is using a modified chewbacca defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE

(09-19-2018 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 04:56 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  There were no witnesses to this so what does anyone investigate.

And she doesn't remember enough detail for an investigation anyway. No date or even a year, no location. There is no crime if you don't have a date. If a prosecutor hands down an indictment saying a murder occurred in November 2014 and it happened in January 2015, you have to find not guilty.

This is not a criminal trial.

Then why would the FBI need to get involved when they have already checked out his background thoroughly?

This is nothing other than a bald attempt to delay the nomination. Whether there is any truth or not, the sole purpose is to delay, which discredits the accuser.

To interview all the parties involved. The I in FBI stands for Investigation. And until this is shown not to be a credible allegation, this nomination should not go forward. You would say the exact same thing if the parties were reversed, so don't even bother denying it.

No. Republicans are not all team over country. We are willing to call bs when it is. Lots of people on here admit Trump likes to "exaggerate."

(09-19-2018 09:37 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:33 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 08:40 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 08:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Wasn't his buddy, Mark Judge, supposedly there? Although he is refusing at this point to come forward, but still put forth a statement saying he doesn't remember anything happening. If he doesn't remember anything happening, why is he afraid to tell that under oath?

Prof. Ford says Mark Judge was there. Mark Judge says he wasn’t there. So it’s only “supposedly” if you already believe Ford and disbelieve Judge.

Also: Mark Judge has published at least two books — 1997 and 2005, I believe — describing how he was a severe alcoholic even in high school, prone to black-outs and unable to recall events after the fact. These admissions have been part of the public record for many years and would obviously cast a cloud over any testimony he might give. I suspect he was identified as the Other Guy In The Room for precisely that reason.

And besides which, does Mark Judge have a greater obligation to go under oath than Christine Ford? She certainly hasn’t done that yet. We shall see if she does on Monday, or not.

All valid points...and to me...point to the clear need for an investigative body to look at this before anyone testifies before the committee. ALL parties should be afforded that courtesy.

And I've never said I believe or don't believe anybody at this point. There needs to be an investigation and all parties involved need to be heard on the record. We waited months to get Gorsuch while only having 8 justices and we still have 9 bodies on the court currently. There is no rush needed here.

Investigate what? She doesn't even remember when or where it happened.

I think you stole $50 million from me in 1990 or 1991 or maybe 1992, but I'm not sure I ever actually had $50 million. Let's have an investigation so we can both be heard on the record.

You put all parties allegedly involved; Kavanaugh, Judge and the Professor, under oath and have them tell their stories on the record. Then you have them testify before the senate committee. If nothing comes of it, you move on with the vote in the Senate.

That's the plan. But she doesn't want to participate.

They already had a conference call to question Kavanaugh. The Democrats refused to participate.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4073...y-shooting

Some good news.
Graham: "...In a statement to The Washington Post, Graham likened the way the Democrats have handled the allegation, which surfaced last week in news reports and was made public over the weekend in an interview in the Post with Kavanaugh's accuser, to a "drive-by shooting."

“All I can say is that we’re bringing this to a close,” Graham told the newspaper...."

If Graham is fully on board, Collins and Corker or Flake will be on board too.

(09-19-2018 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  why would the FBI need to get involved when they have already checked out his background thoroughly?

To interview all the parties involved. The I in FBI stands for Investigation. And until this is shown not to be a credible allegation, this nomination should not go forward. You would say the exact same thing if the parties were reversed, so don't even bother denying it.

”bullet” may have different views on the subject than I do. But if, 10 wks. after nomination of [Ginsburg/Breyer/Sotomayor/Kagan] was announced, and after the Judiciary Committee had finished its hearings, a new and unverified accusation surfaced from a longtime conservative/Republican activist and donor, which alleged bad conduct (but nevertheless, a non-federal crime) by the nominee at the age of 17, at a time and at a location which the accuser could not or would not specify, then...
No: I would not claim that the nomination should be frozen until the FBI conducted “a full investigation.” And if the Democrats controlled the Senate (which they did, in all 4 of those instances), then there is not the slightest chance in hell they would’ve agreed to such a delay. Especially not when (as in the current case), the FBI has already publicly declined to initiate an investigation.

(09-19-2018 09:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4073...y-shooting

Some good news.
Graham: "...In a statement to The Washington Post, Graham likened the way the Democrats have handled the allegation, which surfaced last week in news reports and was made public over the weekend in an interview in the Post with Kavanaugh's accuser, to a "drive-by shooting."

“All I can say is that we’re bringing this to a close,” Graham told the newspaper...."

If Graham is fully on board, Collins and Corker or Flake will be on board too.

Graham and Corker have essentially said that Monday is the day to sh!t or get off the pot. Collins and Flake have hinted as much.

Look: if Ford has convincing evidence, I agree the accusation is extremely serious and presumptively disqualifying. But so far, she’s put Zero on the table other than her own personal accusation, 36 years (!) later, as a supporter of Bernie Sanders and an opponent of Donald Trump. I need a lot more than that to be convinced.

(09-19-2018 09:37 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:33 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 08:40 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 08:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Wasn't his buddy, Mark Judge, supposedly there? Although he is refusing at this point to come forward, but still put forth a statement saying he doesn't remember anything happening. If he doesn't remember anything happening, why is he afraid to tell that under oath?

Prof. Ford says Mark Judge was there. Mark Judge says he wasn’t there. So it’s only “supposedly” if you already believe Ford and disbelieve Judge.

Also: Mark Judge has published at least two books — 1997 and 2005, I believe — describing how he was a severe alcoholic even in high school, prone to black-outs and unable to recall events after the fact. These admissions have been part of the public record for many years and would obviously cast a cloud over any testimony he might give. I suspect he was identified as the Other Guy In The Room for precisely that reason.

And besides which, does Mark Judge have a greater obligation to go under oath than Christine Ford? She certainly hasn’t done that yet. We shall see if she does on Monday, or not.

All valid points...and to me...point to the clear need for an investigative body to look at this before anyone testifies before the committee. ALL parties should be afforded that courtesy.

And I've never said I believe or don't believe anybody at this point. There needs to be an investigation and all parties involved need to be heard on the record. We waited months to get Gorsuch while only having 8 justices and we still have 9 bodies on the court currently. There is no rush needed here.

Investigate what? She doesn't even remember when or where it happened.

I think you stole $50 million from me in 1990 or 1991 or maybe 1992, but I'm not sure I ever actually had $50 million. Let's have an investigation so we can both be heard on the record.

You put all parties allegedly involved; Kavanaugh, Judge and the Professor, under oath and have them tell their stories on the record. Then you have them testify before the senate committee. If nothing comes of it, you move on with the vote in the Senate.

so she doesn't remember when this happened, pretty sure the statue of limitations have expired, if any crime was committed.

Another reason why this needs to be investigated before they vote.

(09-19-2018 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Another reason why this needs to be investigated before they vote.

It was posted on Facebook, then it must be true!!!

This is a delay tactic, nothing more. IMO, it won't change the final outcome. I'll give the D's credit though. I figured they throw out some outlandish race card accusation from four decades ago. I guess they are trying the new #metoo stuff as a last minute stop to the process.

(09-19-2018 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Another reason why this needs to be investigated before they vote.

The letter has been debunked as fake news, as she also tweeted details of the assault which do not match that of Ford's. She has since deleted the tweet and posted that she will no longer be interviewed by the media.

(09-19-2018 02:34 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Another reason why this needs to be investigated before they vote.

It was posted on Facebook, then it must be true!!!

As I said in the other thread...this can all be cleared up fairly quick with an investigation, right?

(09-19-2018 02:36 PM)VA49er Wrote:  This is a delay tactic, nothing more. IMO, it won't change the final outcome. I'll give the D's credit though. I figured they throw out some outlandish race card accusation from four decades ago. I guess they are trying the new #metoo stuff as a last minute stop to the process.

It could also be genuine and true too. Shouldn't we take a few weeks and find out? Again, why the rush. We still have 9 justices, right?

(09-19-2018 02:37 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Another reason why this needs to be investigated before they vote.

The letter has been debunked as fake news, as she also tweeted details of the assault which do not match that of Ford's. She has since deleted the tweet and posted that she will no longer be interviewed by the media.

Link? And I thought it was a facebook post, not a tweet?

(09-19-2018 02:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 02:37 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Another reason why this needs to be investigated before they vote.

The letter has been debunked as fake news, as she also tweeted details of the assault which do not match that of Ford's. She has since deleted the tweet and posted that she will no longer be interviewed by the media.

Link? And I thought it was a facebook post, not a tweet?

You've already posted in the thread with the saved tweet. She tweeted, and deleted the tweet. I have no idea if the facebook pst is still there or not, only that she has now posted on facebook that she doesnt want to talk to anyone about it. (Which sounds so reasonable, since she appeared to be so damned long-winded in her posts about this.)

(09-19-2018 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 02:34 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Another reason why this needs to be investigated before they vote.

It was posted on Facebook, then it must be true!!!

As I said in the other thread...this can all be cleared up fairly quick with an investigation, right?

oh you mean with a government investigation into what?

There is NO WAY this woman would not recall where this alleged attack took place. If this alleged incident had a "profound" impact on her, then she certainly would recall where it happened and how many people were witness to it. Not buying it, and praying the R's have the nutsack to move ahead and confirm Kavanaugh.

(09-19-2018 02:43 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 02:34 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Another reason why this needs to be investigated before they vote.

It was posted on Facebook, then it must be true!!!

As I said in the other thread...this can all be cleared up fairly quick with an investigation, right?

oh you mean with a government investigation into what?

Into the parties involved. Clearly we have Kavanaugh, The Prof, and the other dude who was there. Now we have this school mate...and there may be a couple others that come forward in the coming days.

Put them under oath (although the FBI doesn't have to as lying to them is a crime) and question them.

(09-19-2018 02:51 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  There is NO WAY this woman would not recall where this alleged attack took place. If this alleged incident had a "profound" impact on her, then she certainly would recall where it happened and how many people were witness to it. Not buying it, and praying the R's have the nutsack to move ahead and confirm Kavanaugh.

She could have been drunk. Additionally, don't some people who suffer traumatic events suppress the details, and forget some of them, to lesson the trauma? Not saying that happened, but just providing another reason why an actual investigation should take place before they vote.