ADVERTISEMENT

Kavanaugh Vote Now in Jeopardy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh I’m sure you’d love that.

Let the circus play out, have him dispel this disgusting 11th hour smear campaign, and then vote to confirm him.

This whole ordeal by the Democrats is hideously pathetic.
 
Knowing that absolutely no one has or will corroborate this story, the woman’s lawyer has now said that it’s “not her job” to corroborate her own allegations. Which is to say that they think everyone should simply label Kavanaugh as guilty and make him prove that he’s innocent.

What a perversion of decency this has become
 
UCFKnight85 said:
What a perversion of decency this has become
Click to expand...

Funny, that's what Roy Moore, Al Franken, John Conyers, Garrison Keillor, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Roy Price, Knight Landesman, Mark Halperin, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Tambor, Kevin Spacey, Steven Seagal, John Lasseter, Dustin Hoffman, Richard Dreyfuss, and Mario Batali all said when accused of sexual misconduct.

Who knows? Unlike those other victims, maybe this one is totally making stuff up....um, for the last six years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hemightbejeremy, NinjaKnight and Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
DaShuckster said:
Funny, that's what Roy Moore, Al Franken, John Conyers, Garrison Keillor, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Roy Price, Knight Landesman, Mark Halperin, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Tambor, Kevin Spacey, Steven Seagal, John Lasseter, Dustin Hoffman, Richard Dreyfuss, and Mario Batali all said when accused of sexual misconduct.

Who knows? Unlike those other victims, maybe this one is totally making stuff up....um, for the last six years.
Click to expand...
Wrong, there is absolutely no proof of her claim. The ones you listed at least were corroborate by other people.
 
DaShuckster said:
Funny, that's what Roy Moore, Al Franken, John Conyers, Garrison Keillor, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Roy Price, Knight Landesman, Mark Halperin, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Tambor, Kevin Spacey, Steven Seagal, John Lasseter, Dustin Hoffman, Richard Dreyfuss, and Mario Batali all said when accused of sexual misconduct.

Who knows? Unlike those other victims, maybe this one is totally making stuff up....um, for the last six years.
Click to expand...

Jesus. All of those people faced massive corroborating evidence OR pictures of them doing it (Al Franken).

How about the Duke lacrosse kids? Or the Virginia students who were smeared by rolling stone? Or Chris Hardwick of AMC who seemingly had damning evidence against him yet an investigation found it to be malicious and fabricated?

And by the way, it’s soooooo telling that you utterly fail to include Bill Clinton in your list. Tells me all I need to know.
 
I’m wondering if the OP will actually listen to what was presented in rebuttal or just call to ban everyone who pokes holes in his partisan theories?
 
It’s a good thing we have a system based on due process. A system where the accused gets to face the accuser and examine the evidence for the accusations being levied by the accuser. Whether by civil or criminal trial, the accuser is required to provide evidence against the accused. Our system is not built around the accused proving their innocence but around the accuser presenting evidence of guilt.

But this is no trial, right? By submitting a letter to a legislator who ran with it this has come to light with no formal civil or criminal accusation. There never has been one and there isn’t one now. She can pass all the polygraphs she wants and write all the letters she wants but she is not compelled to present real evidence until there is a formal complaint. At that point she is not only under oath but has to attest that what she is accusing Kavanaugh of is true to her knowledge. I’ll believe her once she puts some skin in the game.

There was, however, a formal due process whereby the nomination could be challenged and the nominee questioned. The Senators had the duty to examine Kavanaugh. DiFi has the information then and chose not to present it as part of the due process of the examination of the nominee. She did not present this on purpose. She knows that there was nothing to hold this up but emotional appeal and no legal foot to stand on. So she intentionally violated the due process of the nominee to bring this forth. It is an egregious violation and she should be censured for not bringing it forward during the hearings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFKnightfan08, fabknight and UCFWayne
If she goes before the senate she will commit a crime. I hope Kavanaugh goes after her for defamation and breaks her in half.
 
sk8knight said:
It’s a good thing we have a system based on due process. A system where the accused gets to face the accuser and examine the evidence for the accusations being levied by the accuser. Whether by civil or criminal trial, the accuser is required to provide evidence against the accused. Our system is not built around the accused proving their innocence but around the accuser presenting evidence of guilt.

But this is no trial, right? By submitting a letter to a legislator who ran with it this has come to light with no formal civil or criminal accusation. There never has been one and there isn’t one now. She can pass all the polygraphs she wants and write all the letters she wants but she is not compelled to present real evidence until there is a formal complaint. At that point she is not only under oath but has to attest that what she is accusing Kavanaugh of is true to her knowledge. I’ll believe her once she puts some skin in the game.

There was, however, a formal due process whereby the nomination could be challenged and the nominee questioned. The Senators had the duty to examine Kavanaugh. DiFi has the information then and chose not to present it as part of the due process of the examination of the nominee. She did not present this on purpose. She knows that there was nothing to hold this up but emotional appeal and no legal foot to stand on. So she intentionally violated the due process of the nominee to bring this forth. It is an egregious violation and she should be censured for not bringing it forward during the hearings.
Click to expand...

Feinstein should be held in contempt of the senate

This is one of the dirtiest smear campaigns I’ve ever seen and she is orchestrating it
 
I see a lot of charged language in this thread, first of all you can't claim objectivity and at the same time assume the Christine Ford is lying. That is the same as someone assuming Kavanaugh is lying about it just in the inverse. There is no difference unless unless you can't take off your partisan glasses. Some Senate Republicans agree, what's sad is that some will still believe it's just politics and simply signs of conservatives caving in to public pressure. Proving this will be near impossible unless Mark Judge who was in the room or Kavanaugh himself admit fault which is not in their interest or someone else who was there corroborates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaKnight and bluechip12
BG_Knightmare said:
I see a lot of charged language in this thread, first of all you can't claim objectivity and at the same time assume the Christine Ford is lying. That is the same as someone assuming Kavanaugh is lying about it just in the inverse. There is no difference unless unless you can't take off your partisan glasses. Some Senate Republicans agree, what's sad is that some will still believe it's just politics and simply signs of conservatives caving in to public pressure. Proving this will be near impossible unless Mark Judge who was in the room or Kavanaugh himself admit fault which is not in their interest or someone else who was there corroborates.
Click to expand...

Judge has already called this accusation “absolutely nuts”. What more does he need to say? The burden of PROOF is on the accuser, despite how many people want to assume Kav is guilty and must prove innocence.

We have a situation in which every single person who has met this man over the past 37 years, including two of his HS girlfriends, all day that he’s a totally upstanding good guy, and then we have one single isolated person who claims he is a monsterous would be rapist

Which one of the above is the outlier and doesn’t quite fit?

There isn’t a single legit corroboration of this woman’s story aside from a vague 2012 therapist visit which may not have dealt with Kavanaugh specifically at all. There is no evidence. Absolutely no one from her family or friends can claim this was corroborated at any time after the “incident”.

This is the most vetted SC nominee in history and yet democrats want to sink him with one utterly unverified accusation that was disgustingly held by Feinstein until the 11th hour.

Sorry- too bad. Nuclear politics can’t be allowed to win. Hear them out then confirm Kavanaugh.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
Judge has already called this accusation “absolutely nuts”. What more does he need to say? The burden of PROOF is on the accuser, despite how many people want to assume Kav is guilty and must prove innocence.

We have a situation in which every single person who has met this man over the past 37 years, including two of his HS girlfriends, all day that he’s a totally upstanding good guy, and then we have one single isolated person who claims he is a monsterous would be rapist

Which one of the above is the outlier and doesn’t quite fit?

There isn’t a single legit corroboration of this woman’s story aside from a vague 2012 therapist visit which may not have dealt with Kavanaugh specifically at all. There is no evidence. Absolutely no one from her family or friends can claim this was corroborated at any time after the “incident”.

This is the most vetted SC nominee in history and yet democrats want to sink him with one utterly unverified accusation that was disgustingly held by Feinstein until the 11th hour.

Sorry- too bad. Nuclear politics can’t be allowed to win. Hear them out then confirm Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...
Kavanaugh will never be on the supreme court. Next candidate please.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
BG_Knightmare said:
I see a lot of charged language in this thread, first of all you can't claim objectivity and at the same time assume the Christine Ford is lying. That is the same as someone assuming Kavanaugh is lying about it just in the inverse. There is no difference unless unless you can't take off your partisan glasses. Some Senate Republicans agree, what's sad is that some will still believe it's just politics and simply signs of conservatives caving in to public pressure. Proving this will be near impossible unless Mark Judge who was in the room or Kavanaugh himself admit fault which is not in their interest or someone else who was there corroborates.
Click to expand...
Wrong yet again, he has been in the public eye for decades as well as having FBI background checks for being on the federal bench. Meanwhile she hides behind an anonymous letter until she had time to scrub her social bios and platforms. You have to ask why she tried to hide her history on twitter and Facebook, meanwhile he hides nothing.

Sorry, she is lying.
 
Last edited:
So this woman doesnt remember what year it happened, what time of year, what time of the day, where it happened, how she got there, etc. Sounds kinda fishy.
 
Crazyhole said:
So this woman doesnt remember what year it happened, what time of year, what time of the day, where it happened, how she got there, etc. Sounds kinda fishy.
Click to expand...

But but but - she told a therapist something about something in 2012!
 
Crazyhole said:
So this woman doesnt remember what year it happened, what time of year, what time of the day, where it happened, how she got there, etc. Sounds kinda fishy.
Click to expand...

So a person who experiences a traumatic event in their life is supposed to remember what she had for breakfast that morning? I never experienced an assault but there have been special events that I remember vividly---yet I can't tell you now what year or day of the week they happened.

The mere notion that a respected college professor would willingly subject herself and her family to this three ring circus if she was "making it all up" is hard to believe.
 
DaShuckster said:
So a person who experiences a traumatic event in their life is supposed to remember what she had for breakfast that morning? I never experienced an assault but there have been special events that I remember vividly---yet I can't tell you now what year or day of the week they happened.

The mere notion that a respected college professor would willingly subject herself and her family to this three ring circus if she was "making it all up" is hard to believe.
Click to expand...

The notion that a guy who has been held in high esteem by every single person that has met him for 37 years is also a secretive rapist is hard to believe.
 
Grassley says they've reached out to Christine Blasey Ford "three or four times" via email about the hearing and haven't heard back yet.
"We still haven't heard from Dr. Ford."

— Phil Mattingly (@Phil_Mattingly) September 18, 2018
 
I have searched for anywhere that Ford or Katz has claimed this was a repressed memory but I can't find it. I can find a number of other people suggesting it may be, but nothing from the principles. What we seem to hear from the principles is that she simply never told anyone until 2012.

Why did she suddenly start talking about this in 2012 and never before to anyone (even her husband or her parents)? What was happening in 2012 that could've triggered this? There is one interesting theory that is staring to float around. In 2012, Romney was starting to gather steam in his Presidential run. In March of 2012, the New Yorker ran an article claiming that Romney, or any Republican who won, would nominate Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court.

Now this doesn't lend any light to the veracity of Ford's assertion, but it is interesting that she hid this from everyone until the time that Kavanaugh comes forward as a potential SCOTUS candidate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
DaShuckster said:
Exactly what I thought when Bill Cosby was accused.
Click to expand...

And probably what you thought when the Duke lacross kids were accused, right?

What you thought when Rolling Stone accused all of those kids of rape at Virginia, right?

Tell me, did you instantly condemn Chris Hardwick too? With mountains more circumstantial evidence than is put up against Kavanaugh?

Good to know that the idea of due process is obsolete to you.
 
So this woman doesnt remember what year it happened, what time of year, where it hap
DaShuckster said:
So a person who experiences a traumatic event in their life is supposed to remember what she had for breakfast that morning? I never experienced an assault but there have been special events that I remember vividly---yet I can't tell you now what year or day of the week they happened.

The mere notion that a respected college professor would willingly subject herself and her family to this three ring circus if she was "making it all up" is hard to believe.
Click to expand...


Nope, but you would think that she could remember a detail like, um, where and what year it happened.
 
sk8knight said:
I have searched for anywhere that Ford or Katz has claimed this was a repressed memory but I can't find it. I can find a number of other people suggesting it may be, but nothing from the principles. What we seem to hear from the principles is that she simply never told anyone until 2012.

Why did she suddenly start talking about this in 2012 and never before to anyone (even her husband or her parents)? What was happening in 2012 that could've triggered this? There is one interesting theory that is staring to float around. In 2012, Romney was starting to gather steam in his Presidential run. In March of 2012, the New Yorker ran an article claiming that Romney, or any Republican who won, would nominate Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court.

Now this doesn't lend any light to the veracity of Ford's assertion, but it is interesting that she hid this from everyone until the time that Kavanaugh comes forward as a potential SCOTUS candidate.
Click to expand...
Kavanaugh was on Romney’s scotus list in 2012, hmmmm.
 
DaShuckster said:
Please share your respect for due process with the guy who wrote this post a few minutes ago. :)
Click to expand...

I see you jumped over my questions directed at you regarding people who were accused and vilified falsely.

Good move, I'd avoid answering those too if I were you.
 
Crazyhole said:
So this woman doesnt remember what year it happened, what time of year, where it hap



Nope, but you would think that she could remember a detail like, um, where and what year it happened.
Click to expand...
i would think that she would at least be able to tell you the year and the season it happened. thats pretty basic stuff
 
DaShuckster said:
So a person who experiences a traumatic event in their life is supposed to remember what she had for breakfast that morning? I never experienced an assault but there have been special events that I remember vividly---yet I can't tell you now what year or day of the week they happened.

The mere notion that a respected college professor would willingly subject herself and her family to this three ring circus if she was "making it all up" is hard to believe.
Click to expand...
In today's society, many people have profited greatly from subjecting themselves and their family to the "three ring circus." In addition, in today's cultural environment we canonize accusers and castigate those that would ask for even the least amount of inspection into the accusation before passing judgement. Given that, I think the days of your last point being generally relevant are over.

Case in point, the Columbia "Mattress Girl" who's story was discredited but who continued to carry her mattress around campus because of the attention it drew and the fact that the truth didn't matter when there was a narrative to be discussed. This is one stark example and we can be here all day discussing other examples where your point fails. This isn't the 80s anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
I'm just waiting to see if Shuckster can bring himself back here to actually admit that there are many men (or boys) who have been falsely accused of sexual assault and were later vindicated, even if they were instantly vilified and judged as rapists before anyone really knew anything.
 
HH: Has Dr. Ford accepted, and she’s agreed to come?

Chuck Grassley: No. We have reached out to her in the last 36 hours three of four times by email, and we’ve not heard from them, so it kind of raises the question do they want to, do they want to come to the public hearing or not? And the reason we’re having the public hearing is obviously, well, number one is accusations like this deserve consideration and looking into, and that’s what the purpose of the hearing is. And we wouldn’t be having this hearing if it wasn’t for the fact that Dr. Ford told the Washington Post and other people publicly that she wanted to testify. And we also have Judge Kavanaugh. Even before we requested him to testify, he said he was willing to testify. As of Sunday night, I had that message. So we still haven’t heard from Dr. Ford. So do they want to have the hearing or not? We’re delaying the vote, strictly, to get all the facts out on the table.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
HH: Has Dr. Ford accepted, and she’s agreed to come?

Chuck Grassley: No. We have reached out to her in the last 36 hours three of four times by email, and we’ve not heard from them, so it kind of raises the question do they want to, do they want to come to the public hearing or not? And the reason we’re having the public hearing is obviously, well, number one is accusations like this deserve consideration and looking into, and that’s what the purpose of the hearing is. And we wouldn’t be having this hearing if it wasn’t for the fact that Dr. Ford told the Washington Post and other people publicly that she wanted to testify. And we also have Judge Kavanaugh. Even before we requested him to testify, he said he was willing to testify. As of Sunday night, I had that message. So we still haven’t heard from Dr. Ford. So do they want to have the hearing or not? We’re delaying the vote, strictly, to get all the facts out on the table.
Click to expand...
Well maybe the smear campaign attacking a potential victim of sexual assault worked. Congrats I guess. We have made it abundantly clear in America that coming forward and reporting sexual assault crimes gains you nothing and ruins your life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
fried-chicken said:
Well maybe the smear campaign attacking a potential victim of sexual assault worked. Congrats I guess. We have made it abundantly clear in America that coming forward and reporting sexual assault crimes gains you nothing and ruins your life.
Click to expand...
I hope Kavanaugh breaks her family in half for this blatant slander and defamation.
 
fried-chicken said:
Well maybe the smear campaign attacking a potential victim of sexual assault worked. Congrats I guess. We have made it abundantly clear in America that coming forward and reporting sexual assault crimes gains you nothing and ruins your life.
Click to expand...

She’s part of a disgusting smear campaign against Kavanaugh and has been asked to show up and actually present testimony under oath. God forbid!

Your comments are hilarious though given your total indifference to the woman who has accused Bill Clinton of rape in public for 35 years. You’re such a hypocrite. Not 2 shits given about that when you cast your ballot for the woman who slandered Broderick over and over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
UCFKnight85 said:
She’s part of a disgusting smear campaign against Kavanaugh and has been asked to show up and actually present testimony under oath. God forbid!

Your comments are hilarious though given your total indifference to the woman who has accused Bill Clinton of rape in public for 35 years. You’re such a hypocrite. Not 2 shits given about that when you cast your ballot for the woman who slandered Broderick over and over.
Click to expand...
Let me guess, one of the triumvirate has said that Ford is being victim-shamed? Have they actually provided any evidence of this beyond someone looking up ratemyprofessor?
 
Democrats: we must believe every woman's accusation always

Also Democrats: we don't believe Keith Ellison's accuser, even despite the mountain of actual evidence against him.



DNC Deputy Chair and Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison has been accused domestic abuse by former girlfriend Karen Monahan. Monahan broke her story earlier in the year, claiming to have video evidence of Ellison physically abusing her and using sexist slurs toward her.

Monahan has been slowly telling her story through Twitter, explaining how Democrats in her state attempted to silence her and “isolate” her. When a follower asked if Democrats believed her claims, Monahan said, “I’ve been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party.”

Monahan alleges she provided medical records to back up her claims of abuse, but state Democrats did nothing: “I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different Dr. Visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it. My therapist released records stating I have been dealing [with] and healing from the abuse.”

“I knew I wouldn’t be believed,” Monahan said of her Democratic colleagues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Kavanaugh will be a legal analyst on fox news this time next year. I guess being a rapey predator is not working out for the GOP this year
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

UCFChargeOn

Is Georgia the next Baylor?

Replies
24
Views
1K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
litehedded
L
Brandon

***Reflections of Joe Girardi's late-stage snub of UCF ⚾

Replies
192
Views
8K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
Kevin Reis
Kevin Reis
K

OT Daniels: All 3 SunBelt Teams with big P5 Road Upset Wins had something in common: 5th/6th year Transfer QBs

Replies
14
Views
599
The Dungeon - Knights Only
UCF Sam
UCF Sam
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back