So, here's some fun stats. Apparently, the majority of Republicans apparently think that even if Brett Kavanaugh did sexually assault someone, he should still be made a Supreme Court Judge. Also, and this is somewhat more surprising, the majority of Americans across the board didn't say that he should be disqualified.
Now, this once again reminds me that your country is filled with backwards retards, but more importantly, what do you guys think? I mean, firstly, do you think he did it, and secondly, do you care? Or are you just some absolute fuckwit who thinks it doesn't matter? Statistically, you're probably the latter, but let's here it!
I don't know whether he did it or not, but regardless all Republicans should be beheaded on the steps of Congress while their corporate money-grubbing world is torn down around them.
It’s a pointless hypothetical. There’s no way to know for sure whether Kavanaugh did it unless he outright admits it, which will never happen. There’s simply no way to establish proof for an alleged assault from so long ago. Personally, I think it’s a load of bull. Ford has provided absolutely no evidence for her allegations, and no one she claims was at the party recalls the party ever occurring, even her own friend. Even her parents refused to sign a letter saying they believe her. This is nothing more than a witch hunt.
I think regardless of whether it's true or not the Democrats should do everything in their power to block Kavanaugh and all future nominees. If they take Congress then no more nominees for two years until 2020.
No, it's not pointless at all. It reveals some pretty key information that people just don't care about a Supreme Court Judge having done this, it reveals the lack of any real morality for most Republicans, and it reveals that the majority of the country lacks any moral backbone whatsoever.
But of course, it's not impossible at all, you just have a dimwit's idea of the law and justice in general, so whatever.
Edit: Also, quite interestingly, you both think it's impossible to prove, yet you blame a potential victim for not being able to prove it. Nice, Vicky, nice.
That seems unfair and overly simplistic. There’s been plenty of Republicans who have come out against Kavanuagh, as well as groups that formerly supported him. To simplify it down to just a partisan issue is simply wrong.
According to the Marist poll, more Democrats believe Kavanaugh (8%) than Republicans who believe Ford (5%).
Interesting. Also interesting how most people who followed the coverage believe Ford. It's actually a very interesting poll, good non-cancerous post.
Morality in most cases is out dated though the only reason to bother with what the majority thinks right is to ensure and effective end goal, if their is no logical end goal all action before hand is stupid and most cases hindering.
It's a pointless hypothetical because when the pollster asks Republicans whether they would support Brett Kavanaugh even if he did assault someone, they know that it's impossible to actually know whether he assaulted someone. They know that the most that can happen is that the media will spin it like it's been confirmed, but they would still support him because the media is a bunch of liars.
I never blamed Dr. Ford for anything. I blame American people for believing a claim of sexual assault without the slightest shred of evidence.
Again no, not what they said. They didn't say they don't trust the media, they said if it's true, they'd support him. These people aren't being solipsistic with the belief nothing can be proven, this is if it is true, which it could be proved, sure. One of the men confess, one of the guys at the party say something actually happened, fucking loads of things could prove it. If anyone's spinning shit, it seems to be you spinning the fact that the majority of the Republican party is scum.
One of the guys at the supposed party saying something would absolutely not prove anything. It would represent a reversal of a previous position, and there is nothing to say that the new position would be more truthful than the previous one. Of course, the Republican base knows that the media would frame such an event as "proving" the accusation, which is why they say that they would still support Kavanaugh. We know the tactics that were used against Trump and against Moore, and we won't be fooled any longer.
No, that's not how facts work. "I don't remember a specific party for thirty six years ago" doesn't prove much. "I remember a party from thirty six years ago, Brett Kavanagh and Mark Judge raped someone there" is a hell of a lot more.
It's highly unlikely that anyone involved would suddenly "remember" the party now. One of those 2 statements would have to have been a lie.
Sure, they were lying the first time, and they admit that Kavanaugh bribed them, showing a suspicious case where one of Kavanaugh's guys paid a large sum into his account. Proven.
What is there to say that the opposition didn't bribe them now? Admitting to lie the first time is throwing your credibility out of the window.
Besides, where's the money? Can you actually present solid proof that they bribed you, or just circumstantial bullshit?
Not saying i would support him if he was an actual rapist (and that would be seriously wrong), but i believe this accusation is a load of bs that has surfaced as a political move (or any other reason, really) rather than an actual desire for justice.
Why would she bring up this case now? It's suspicious at best.
Yeah, sure, hypothetically they could prove that he bribed them. They'd show payments and messages. That would constitute proof.
And why would she bring the case up now has been expressed repeatedly. If someone's raped, they're most likely not going to make an accusation, because it's crippling for them. All of a sudden, everyone treats them differently, and usually nothing changes. If I were raped tomorrow, I wouldn't report it.
However, if after many years you found out that your rapist was going to become a supreme court judge, a threshold it crossed. At that point, you have a duty to do something, because you can't stay silent when the dude is going to become supreme court justice. In that situation, I would absolutely tell someone and make accusations. That's why she'd bring it up now. It couldn't be less suspicious.
Yeah, hypothetically. But many things can happen hypothetically, and it's a moot point because we can't really know these things.
But i'm just really saying here that admitting into a lie harms your overall credibility. If they decide to change their position into accusing Kavanaugh of bribing them, they'll have to present solid (if not decisive depending on things) proof, otherwise the other side can just say they're lying for some reason. It wouldn't be the first time.
Sure, that's plausible story, but it's the time here that counts. If it was a week, a month, or a year, it would make sense that the victim's feelings would get in the way, maybe i would believe if things happened a decade ago, but if we're talking twenty, maybe thirty years, etc, things get a different tone. Why would she bring up this accusation after so many years, with apparently no external motivation aside from a promotion to the accused? This is quite suspicious to me.
From what i've seen, she doesn't have proof to back up her claims, the FBI organized several investigations and nothing to back up her claim showed up.
I'm okay if you believe she's saying the truth, that's also a possibility. But if you have no way to prove it, then it's only fair that Kavanaugh continues in his way to the Supreme Court and the accusation is dropped.
EDIT: Maybe several investigations is pushing it, but i can tell the FBI already investigated and no decisive or solid evidence showed up. Otherwise i guess i'd already have seen it somewhere.
EDIT²: Yeah, definitely jumped the gun there with the several, not easy to filter what is exaggerated or what meaning things take when i read about the case and what isn't. But as far as i've seen into the accusation, it still doesn't seem to me that her case should go forward or that she's speaking the truth about it. And i should really find a way to lower my text walls.
Still, personal beliefs aside, if she doesn't present a single narrative backed by proof and circumstances, Kavanaugh might as well be declared innocent. Thinking someone did it and proving it are different things, and the burden of the proof lies with the accuser.
1. What the fuck are you on about, dude? Yeah, hypothetically. This all started because Victim said that it could never be proved, and thus the polls that we saw about Republicans still wanting Kavanaugh if the assault allegations were true were all bent. I gave a hypothetical where it could be proven. Now you're like "Yeah, well, that's only a hypothetical". Damn fucking right it's a hypothetical, to show Victim's point wrong. Here's Victim's point;
It's a pointless hypothetical because when the pollster asks Republicans whether they would support Brett Kavanaugh even if he did assault someone, they know that it's impossible to actually know whether he assaulted someone.
All I'm fucking pointing out is that it isn't hypothetical. The rest of the bullshit is your own doing.
2. What the fuck is time a factor? She didn't want to tell anyone because it'd fuck up her life, and he's just some dude. However, if the dude was going to become a Supreme Court Judge, no matter how long after, she'd find a responsibility. Again, I'm the same way, I wouldn't report if some random dude did it tomorrow, but if in thirty years I found out he's about to be a Supreme Court Judge? Yeah, I'd come forward, because I have to do what's right and just.
Would you seriously not think it's a huge push to speak out against someone who did awful things to do if you found out that dude was about to become one of the most respected symbols of justice in the country? This isn't some promotion, this is the supreme fucking court. You can find it suspicious, but this is one of the only things that would get me to tell the media about this kind of shit.
3. No, there is plenty of evidence showing that Kavanaugh committed perjury, and it's for that matter that he should not be on the Supreme Court. The dude's a disgrace to justice for that.
Before anything, calm your tits. No need to get up in arms at all
1. I literally just elaborated on what i said in my first response to you. In fact, you said before that if they admit to lying in the first one and accuse him of bribing they'd effectively mean that the second is true and that Kavanaugh is by extension a rapist.
Well, for starters, lying the first time doesn't exclude the possibility of the second being a lie too. The opposition could simply point out that and ask for solid proof. Since Ford's friends credibility would already be harmed, it'd be much more difficult to get out of that one and Kavanaugh would have the advantage.
You replied saying: "Yeah, they could just find some conversations, payment proof, etc" to which i could say "Well, you might as well say that you believe they're being bribed right now instead of relying on hypotheticals".
The thing is, it's a possibility. You believe that's what's happening and i bet Victim don't. No one here can really prove shit. In Victim's world, he's right, in your world, you're right. I don't think he (or anyone) really wants to discuss alternate universes here, so it's a moot point.
2. Again, i just really told you that's a possibility, and presented the reasons why i don't believe it. Timing being the first one.
Can't say i really understand why the hell would you let a rapist go if he's a random dude and report him (and attract media attention) if he gets a higher position. If he dealt with rape, maybe, but i don't think he'll be dealing with that on the Supreme Court, unless i'm missing something about american politicians.
Honestly, i'd just report him on the act or some time after the occurrence. There's a lot of people who do or would do that, why exactly is Ford different?
3. That's a different offense, but if what you're saying is true then he shouldn't be part of Supreme Court. Of course, this should go the same way for both sides of the political spectrum.
Again, if that's true. If it isn't then there's no reason at all why this circus should go ahead. If an accuser can't back up their claims, then the defendant should be released as innocent. This goes for everyone, it's the absolute basis of modern legal practices: "Innocent until proven guilty".
This goes (or should go) for rape too.
1. And again, you're wasting my time, you stupid trog. I don't believe they're being bribed. You agree it's a possibility, you absolute dipshit. That's all I was pointing out. I was pointing out that it is a possibility it could be proved Kavanaugh did it, where Victim said it was not a possibility. You've been fucking around and wasting my time, before admitting you're wrong and kind of fudging the point to somewhere where you're not half retarded.
2. Because if you know a rapist is going to become the highest judge in the country, a man responsible for national justice, that's a disgrace. How is that so hard to be explained to you? That if a man was appointed to be appointed as a member of the supreme court and you knew he did awful things, you'd have to speak up?
But no, I doubt you'd report in either case, since you're a little bitch. Reporting takes a hell of a lot of strength, and you're lacking. Sorry I'm ruining your chance to act the big man because of how you'd act in a hypothetical you've never been in, you faggot.
3. Yes, perjury is different that sexual assault. Thanks for clarifying. It is true, clearly. There's been evidence show throughout the thread.
1. I think it's you who's wasting people's times here. Congratulations, it's a possibility, so what? It's possible that you're gay, does bungee jump, that the universe is a minor part of something bigger, that aliens are watching you and laughing right now, that god is real, that you're a toon in a videogame... Doesn't mean it's true.
Also, where did i say i am wrong on something or that i was backing up Victim? It's you who's jumping to conclusions here (or rather, deliberately twisting things to fit your narrative). Also, thanks for showing that you don't know what is a civil discussion.
Also², it's funny because the last thing you mentioned could be applied to you.
Because if you know a rapist is going to become the highest judge in the country, a man responsible for national justice, that's a disgrace. How is that so hard to be explained to you? That if a man was appointed to be appointed as a member of the supreme court and you knew he did awful things, you'd have to speak up?
If you're pulling the justice card, why not accuse him at the time? Is it truly that brave to wait thirty years to make justice? His position changes nothing on the moral aspect, if he was responsible of rape, she should've accused him earlier.
Instead, she waits thirty years and sees the dude ascending to the Supreme Court, and only then decides to take action? Why is it that it is her civic duty to accuse him when he's in a higher position, and not as soon as she discovered his "true nature", since that would prevent further victims? That's double standards, Steve Wonder.
Again, what is YOUR point here? I've already said my piece about it and why i can't believe this civic duty tale, but you clearly can't accept that people think differently than you, considering how much you say the same thing over and over again.
Oy, look, it's me who can't add anything new to the conversation and resorts to personal attacks. - Steve, 2018.
Apparently, you've already been raped. So please tell me about your experience with rape and how strong you was when you reported it. I bet the experience truly scarred you for life, Steve. If you could upload proof about it, we could all share with people how you're such a strong person.
Or maybe you're a hypocrite because you've never been raped either, and can't say shit about how you would act in this situation by your own standards? Because that's what it's looking like here.
Either possibility doesn't change that you're being a moron right now. But i suppose i don't need to tell you that.
In addition, i think i know more about myself than you, Chase.
Yes, perjury is different that sexual assault. Thanks for clarifying. It is true, clearly. There's been evidence show throughout the thread.
If the perjury is real, then we are in agreement as to his position on the Supreme Court. It doesn't mean that he's guilty of rape, though.
1. Yeah, it's a possibility. Victim said it wasn't. I was arguing with him. I was right. You've wasted my time by arguing about this shit when you had no point to make. You just wasted your own time in a pathetic attempt to argue when you had no point that you were making.
2. Because rape can be traumatic, and you're concerned about yourself right after. Because there's a difference between a dude getting away with a crime he would've almost definitely got away with otherwise and someone saying nothing while the person they know did awful things becomes a supreme court judge.
Seriously, whining about personal attacks when you made them many times tonight already? God, you're such a pussy.
I've been raped and sexually assaulted before, sure. I don't have proof and didn't report it. This is common news that you're behind on.
Chase? Are we doing a weird bit here or were you planning to skip to a point? Either way, I think we both know that you're pathetic, and you know that you're an unhappy little fuck. Let's not waste time and pretend otherwise when it's clearly true, you weak little faggot.
Yes, someone committing perjury doesn't make them a rapist. God, you're such a pathetic fuck you just have to get the last word in rather than admitting I'm right. Yes, perjury is bad and Kavanaugh shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. Glad I've twisted that out of you.
Yeah, it's a possibility. Victim said it wasn't. I was arguing with him. I was right. You've wasted my time by arguing about this shit when you had no point to make. You just wasted your own time in a pathetic attempt to argue when you had no point that you were making.
So i wasted my time because i didn't follow some kind of obscure, arbitrary rule you've set up for your imaginary debates? Sounds legit.
Never said i was in Victim or your side, i added that the whole discussion was pointless because it wouldn't lead anywhere. To Victim, it isn't possible, to you it is. Congratulations, in your imaginary world it all works, in his version it doesn't. So you basically wasted everyone's time to "win" over a technicallity.
And i'm the pathetic one here. Sure, Steve, sure.
Because rape can be traumatic, and you're concerned about yourself right after. Because there's a difference between a dude getting away with a crime he would've almost definitely got away with otherwise and someone saying nothing while the person they know did awful things becomes a supreme court judge.
So you're concerned with yourself first and leaves a rapist to roam the land, raping people and doing whatever, but when he gets a promotion to a symbolic and powerful position you're suddenly the model of civic duty and lose all sense of self-preservation you previously had? To me, that's suspicious and unlikely.
Here's my version: She wanted attention and opposed Kavanaugh's political alignment (or whatever else), so she created a false rape story to appeal to the left wing, capitalizing on an already existing social and political conflict that regarding rape and the demonification of men. Conflict which didn't exist before more recent times and was created by and in favour of left-wing "social justice" groups.
There, we disagree and neither of us can prove shit. Case closed.
By your logic, if someone punches you out of nowhere and you punch back you can't really complain about being punched for no reason in the first place. You attacked me first with no reason, at all.
Point out to me a single instance where i insulted you or attacked you personally before you started acting like a moron. Show me, please.
Now quiet down, let people speak their opinions. I mean, their actual opinions, not what they make up to win imaginary debates.
Hmm, that surely excuses you acting like a moron all of a sudden. "lulz i was raped before, i can really speak about everyone's reaction in regards to rape because i really know how you'd act hurr durr, i was raped so it gives me the right to start calling you names all of a sudden"
Stop claiming the moral high ground when you act like a moron yourself.
Aww, little Steve can't really get jokes. He's so mad he needs to use swear words to confirm his false sense of superiority. How sad, this little narcisist.
"God, you're such a pathetic fuck you just have to get the last word in rather than admitting I'm right."
Zoom in there, great, now keep still. Keep it there.
So you're just complaining about something you've just done?
Like, how hypocritical of you. I've tried to end things in an agree to disagree note and you attacked me out of nowhere for this exact same reason, and now you pull the "You're so pathetic, you needed to have the last word" card? Wow, Hypocriteve, you're really consistent.
Consistent in being contradictory, i mean.
I can accept that you view the situation differently from me. But when you start insulting and doing personal attacks because you can't really let a discussion end in a civil tone or a fundamentally irreconciliable disagreement and have to "win" to feed your ego, it just shows to me and people your answers aren't credible at all.
You want to "win" and not find solutions or, really, information, which is the fundamental reason discussions and debate exist. You got to the point, Steve, where you shut down people whom you disagree with and mock them publicly in a sign of disrespect (as in, lack of civility, not admiration), which shows how intolerant and not morally right you are. You're a wolf disguised as sheep.
To end it all, let's take a moment of silence for Steve's braincells. They all died in the valiant effort to make him stop twisting people's arguments to fit his own narrative and agenda so he could have actual, fulfilling and nice civil discussions. I am certainly not wasting any more of my time with this dude, but you can if you really want to.
No, you wasted time because you started arguing with someone over literally nothing, because you had nothing to argue about, dipshit.
And here, we have some delightful victim blaming. No, because the victim is scared and terrified after her attack, and pretty fucking emotional, and she knows she doesn't have the proof to convict the rapist, and would only ruin her own life while achieving nothing, because she didn't have evidence. Of course, later on in life, when she finds out the rapist is going to become the symbol of justice in her country, she finds the strength to say something rather than let justice be disgraced, because you're older, more mature and not in the aftermath of the worst thing that's ever happened to you.
No, you can hit someone in self-defence, because that's protecting yourself. Insulting is not self defence. And I've never insulted you before you acted like a retard, so really, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Stop claiming the moral high ground? You literally told me to tell you about it, you fucking pussy. "Oh, tell me about your rape? You told me? Fuck off." You're a pathetic twat crawling away after being given exactly what you were asked for, spastic.
Was... was that your attempt at a joke? Calling me by a different name? Is that what you think a joke is? Or are you just crawling away like a little faggot again? The latter, in case I need to tell you.
Hypocriteve? That was your attempt at a joke? Jesus, dude, you're literally retarded. If that's the standard you're at, it's fucking pathetic. But no, I'm right, so I don't really have anything to admit.
So, here's what happened. You stumbled in like a jag off, not understanding fuck all about what Victim and I were discussing, and you consistently thought I actually believed that the witnesses were bribed. Then, you started victim-blaming rape victims like a faggot for your argument. Then, you thought you'd take a hit by pointing out that I hadn't been raped, but after realizing I had been, you threw a hissy fit where "Ugh, why are you telling me about the thing I asked about? UGH, STOP BEING BETTER THAN ME!" You're a pathetic individual, and your sadness is entirely your own. Rot in it, you victim blaming, whining, pussy.
Well somebody, I won't say who, though it isn't Steve, already made this a toxic environment unsuitable for intelligent conversation.
Don't let the dullards quash intelligent conversation, Ug, if you do that, intelligent conversation isn't going to exist anymore because there's a hell of a lot of idiots spouting gibberish, and if you give up the chance to fight against them, they tend to spread.
It was Victim, wasn't it?
Is that rhetorical, or do you actually need him to confirm that?
Go back to your safe space.
I mean, realistically, it makes sense to come forward at a time like this. If I was raped tomorrow, I probably wouldn’t bother to go to the police. However, if I in thirty years I found out my rapist was going to be on the Supreme Court, at that point, I’d see myself with a civic duty to say something so the prick can’t get in power.
In regards to the lack of evidence, it’s not surprising. We wouldn’t expect to see any evidence in a situation like this, so it really doesn’t tell us much. Rape as a crime tends to be like that.
Fair point. There's not really much you can do or say for the sake of justice, in all regards. The whole affair just kind of feels stale and painful overall. But, so is life.
And I'm not actually sure if it would've been sealed away. My gut says no, but that's based on a moral basis of that being ridiculous, but I'm afraid I haven't covered it, and even if I had, your country's legal system is awfully different and judges matter a shit ton to you guys for some reason, because you have a system where your ancient supreme court judges have major influence rather than the people you actually elect.
That's incredibly unsettling.
The environment around the issue is pretty complex. It makes us see things certain ways, preconditioned assumptions, wishes, etc. When many fine lines run beside one another they blur, when black and white stripes run along side one another, unless the eyes are focussed exceptionally well, we see gray.
However, I was under the impression that we lived in a country where people were innocent until proven guilty. I'll stand right beside you and vehemently oppose light sentences for sexual misconduct, hell, I'll go further than most of you, I have half a mind to say rapists should never go free again.
Accusations should be investigated and taken seriously. They are not equivalent to evidence. People are never guilty until proven innocent. If we make an exception and betray that basic foundation, we have taken a grave step into a much worse world.
While in no way a parallel of the particular situation at hand, here is an example that illustrates to me why those principles are so important.
There was a girl in my social circle in college of which I was very distrustful. I considered her toxic to the environment and a bad influence on everyone. She would call sometimes and ask if I could meet with her and provide some advice. I obliged as I'm a damn fool. This repeated several times. She was really falling apart. Eventually I told her, you need to change "these" behaviors and seek professional help, there's nothing I can do for you. She flipped her lid that I wouldn't take hours out of my day to let her dump her problems any more.
After that she accused me of all kinds of things. If that had been allowed to brand me and damage my chances at achieving something, that would have been incredibly unjust.
Yikes I've just found out that your Supreme Court justices don't have an expiration date, that's crazy. I know that judges in the common law are central figures, but they are following the same custom popes and monarchs are. They are people with a job, not just emblems of your legal system.
Regarding the nomination, it would turn into a political choice even if it was allegedly based on merit, and that's due to the very function of the Supreme Court. The thing that disturbs me is that it's an exclusively Presidential nomination, while they could at least be elected by a number of different figures and institutions, as they do in my messy country. That may ultimately slow down the process a little, but well here we have developed an almost instinctive (and sometimes irrational) fear of giving power to a single person.
clearly it's a hoax, that's why this doctor of pyschology risked her career, got shit on by the most powerful men in the country and attracted international media attention for um... brownie points?
also, she talked about it to her therapist like ten years ago and said "yeah, it was brett kavanaugh, he's a federal circuit judge". long before he ran for the supreme court.
also, kavanaugh is an absolute terrifying jackal. these ultra-catholic goons and freaks are a fucking scourge on humanity.
You've clearly been the subject of much misinformation. No, knowing you, you probably sought the misinformation out yourself. The therapist she talked to confirmed that Ford talked to her about a sexual assault, but she said that Ford never mentioned any names (which contradicts Ford's own testimony). As for why she would risk her career, it's because she knows the far-left media would back up her false accusations, and her career would never actually be in jeopardy. On the other hand, she get to advance her political agenda, and those $500,000 of GoFundMe funds sure don't hurt.
Interesting that all of Christine Ford's RateMyProfessor reviews have been scrubbed. Wonder what they're trying to hide...
probably lots of derivatives of "die you stupid cunt"
If her students are saying that kind of thing about her, then it says quite a bit about her as a person, don't you think?
Die you stupid cunt.
Says quite a bit about you as a person, doesn't it?
This delighted me, well played, Coins.
If all of her students are saying that, then it says quite a bit more about the person being accused of being a cunt.
Oh, do you have evidence ALL her students said that, or MOST of her students?
To be fair, most would still be an interesting if mostly irrelevant piece of information.
Sure, but, let's face it, they weren't.
That I don't know, and pretend to have no evidence or conviction one way or the other.
Inference still exists, you know.
If I knew more about the woman I might be willing to make inferences. Since I have very little inside information into the situation, the question of whether or not her rate my professor scores were mostly positive or mostly negative isn't something I can fairly infer. (Having never been her student, talked with one of her students, talked with one of her faculty members, etc...) Evidence probably exists, but I haven't seen it and haven't heard of it.
My concern is my opinion would be uneducated and in my own view, invalid, though not necessarily wrong or right. If it were right, it would be most purely by chance and not by any inductive merit of my own. I aim as much as possible at indifference until evidence. In this case, I don't care enough to go about gathering that evidence.
I'm not referring to whether her scores as a professor were high or not, the question is whether most of the defamatory and offensive statements, the example being "DIE, CUNT!" were not by her students, and this is what was being erased. Whether or not she's a good professor is irrelevant to me.
Oh, then we are in agreement.
If that were a problem, they could simply have prevented new submissions after the controversy broke. The fact that they went out of their way to scrub all past reviews says a lot.
Apparently he's going to be confirmed. I guess if you start crying and admit to frequently getting blackout drunk during your job interview, your coworkers will stand behind you as long as you're conservative enough that the majority party will desperately want you to be in power.
When 7 FBI investigations turn up nothing, you have to be a hopeless partisan to still think the allegations have any credibility.
And again, it's unlikely they would since there rape's one of those crimes without much evidence.
So if I were to claim that you raped me 20 years ago at some party somewhere without a shred of evidence to back it up, should you be barred from promotion in your current job for the rest of your life?
No. If you were caught lying on oath, though, definitely barred from being a judge, let alone a Supreme Court judge.
I assume you're talking about the story of him supposedly blacking out. The person who claims that he blacked out says that countless other people have seen him black out, but no one besides him is willing to corrobate the claim. Therefore, it's ridiculous to claim that Kavanaugh lied about never blacking out based on the claim of a single person.
Kavanaugh firstly said he'd never been to an event like the one Dr Ford described when his weird personal calender showed he had.
He lied and said that the four witnesses at the event said it didn't happen, which is blatantly false.
He also lied about the meaning of several slang words such as "Devil's Triangle" and "boofing".
He lied about saying he was Renate Alumni being an affectionate thing rather than, as the girl herself admitted, a demeaning sexual thing.
In regards to the blacking out thing, we have more than one person, including Chad Luddington, LIz Swisher and Lynne Brookes all saying that he was lying about his drinking habits.
He said he never knew about the Memogate Scandel until the media reported on it, although reports show he absolutely did and received files.
He said he wasn't involved with any questions of detaining non-combatants with the Bush administration, when it was revealed he had advised lawyers on the matter.
That's a whole lot of misinformation in one post. I'll respond to them point by point.
"Kavanaugh firstly said he'd never been to an event like the one Dr Ford described when his weird personal calender showed he had."
Even The Huffington Post admits that the calendar doesn't mention the party.
"He lied and said that the four witnesses at the event said it didn't happen, which is blatantly false."
Well, first off there's only 3 supposed witnesses, not 4. Secondly, Kavanaugh claimed that the witnesses "refuted" Dr. Ford's testimony. Dr. Ford claimed that all 3 witnessed the sexual assault, one of whom is Dr. Ford's close friend. All 3 said that they had no recollection of any party that both Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford attended. When 3 of your own witnesses say that they can't remember anything like what you're describing, that's a pretty clear refutation of your claim. Even if you were to say that they all forgot about the incident somehow, it still greatly damages your credibility. To claim that it is "blatantly false" takes quite a bit of spin.
"He also lied about the meaning of several slang words such as "Devil's Triangle" and "boofing"."
You can't say that. Kavanaugh went into the hearing already knowing the more mainstream usage of those terms since the story about his yearbook had already broken in the media. However, he claimed that his friends used and understood the terms differently, and you can't refute that. The meaning of slang terms are inherently murky, and it's not like there was an "Urban Dictionary" to refer to for a standard definition during Kavanaugh's high school era.
"He lied about saying he was Renate Alumni being an affectionate thing rather than, as the girl herself admitted, a demeaning sexual thing."
Renate said, "I don't know what 'Renate Alumnus' actually means." As for Kavanaugh lying about it being an affectionate thing, that is only your belief. You don't have any actual proof he lied about it.
"In regards to the blacking out thing, we have more than one person, including Chad Luddington, LIz Swisher and Lynne Brookes all saying that he was lying about his drinking habits."
Chad Luddington is the only one who outright claims that Kavanaugh blacked out. How he knows whether or not Kavanaugh blacked out is anyone's guess since only the drinker himself could possibly know the next morning by whether or not he recalls the events of the previous night. The only way he might have known is if Kavanaugh told him about it, but he doesn't say that. Lynne Brookes says that she doesn't find it "plausible" that Kavanaugh "remembers everything he did that night" based on his behavior, but behavior can't actually tell you whether someone has blacked out. The final one, Liz Swisher, only claims that he was a heavy drinker but not that he had blacked out.
"He said he never knew about the Memogate Scandel until the media reported on it, although reports show he absolutely did and received files."
That is just your belief that he lied. Kavanaugh claims that he didn't know the memos were stolen, and you have absolutely nothing disproving that.
"He said he wasn't involved with any questions of detaining non-combatants with the Bush administration, when it was revealed he had advised lawyers on the matter."
Kavanaugh claimed that he was “not involved” in “questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.” This is a true statement. He advised lawyers about whether or not the policy would be seen as legal once or twice. Giving a legal opinion is not "involving" yourself with the matter.
So in conclusion, your list of supposed lies under oath are all based on baseless assumptions or outright lies.
In regards to the calender, he did go to one on the first with at least Mark Judge and PJ.
"All four witnesses who were allegedly at the event have said it didn't happen, including Dr Ford's long time friend, Miss Kaiser."
That's what he said. You're right, there was only three. He was lying. He said that the witnesses claimed it didn't happen. All false. The witnesses didn't remember the incident or the party in question. That's quite likely, there were probably many college parties and you wouldn't remember them all, and Miss Kaiser specifically said she believes it did happen. Kavanaugh lied and said that they claimed it didn't happen. There's a serious difference in law and in normal word usage between "I don't remember something" and "Something didn't happen".
The claim that someone used words differently to their usage is pretty outlandish and barely worth anyone's time. You don't develop words that have the same slang usage as something else it could've easily meant by coincidence or intention.
You're bullshitting by skipping the rest of the quote Renate had. “I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way.” That fairly clearly shows it wasn't a term of endearment, and she didn't find out about it until nowadays.
Lynne Brookes and Liz Swisher both claimed that Kavanaugh had lied about his drinking habits. This is a fact you're meandering around.
I do have proof for memogate, actually. On March 28, 2003, Kavanaugh received eight pages of the leak with the subject "For use and not distribution,". So yeah.
Yes, giving legal advice on a matter in involving yourself, that's kind of why companies have lawyers. Legal advice.
Not that I think Victim's in any way a real person, he's a notable troll who doesn't really believe anything, but if anyone of value actually cares about the Kavanaugh thing, that's the push of it all, and Kavanaugh did perjure himself.
"In regards to the calender, he did go to one on the first with at least Mark Judge and PJ."
Clearly it didn't match the description of Christine Ford's party since every news organization says that the calendar doesn't mention the house party described by Christine Ford. If the calendar were actually incriminating, he wouldn't have mentioned having one in the first place. You're going to have to cite a source backing up your ridiculous claim.
"That's what he said. You're right, there was only three. He was lying."
Okay. You're right about that one. However, that can't be considered perjury. It was probably just a slip of mouth or memory.
"He said that the witnesses claimed it didn't happen. All false."
No he didn't. This is his actual quote: "All of the people identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party have said they do not remember any such party ever happening. Importantly her friend Ms. Keyser has not only denied knowledge of the party. Ms. Keyser said under penalty of felony she does not know me, does not ever recall being at a party with me ever." All of this is accurate.
"The witnesses didn't remember the incident or the party in question. That's quite likely, there were probably many college parties and you wouldn't remember them all"
I would certainly remember a party if a sexual assault happened. Even moreso, this was a small gathering of 5 people, so I would at least have a vague recollection of being at a party with Kavanaugh. One of the alleged witnesses says that she never even knew or met Kavanaugh. With such gaping holes in your story, any court of law would have long since thrown the case out.
"Miss Kaiser specifically said she believes it did happen."
That just means that she would have tried much harder to recall the event, and even so she couldn't. When someone who believes you still can't back up your story, that says a lot.
"Kavanaugh lied and said that they claimed it didn't happen."
"The claim that someone used words differently to their usage is pretty outlandish and barely worth anyone's time. You don't develop words that have the same slang usage as something else it could've easily meant by coincidence or intention."
Lots of your arguments are quite outlandish as well. Words, especially slang words in the pre-Internet age, change in meaning as they spread from place to place and generation to generation. Of course they didn't develop the slang words on their own, but they inherited the warped meaning of the words.
You're bullshitting by skipping the rest of the quote Renate had.
No I'm not. I just showed the important part that you neglected to mention because it would prove false your claim that Renate "admitted" the "true meaning" of the term. Renate did not know the true meaning of the term, as proven by the quote I quoted. The later part of the quote that you quoted above is her response to the media's interpretation of the quote which she now believes to be true (but can't be proven).
"Lynne Brookes and Liz Swisher both claimed that Kavanaugh had lied about his drinking habits. This is a fact you're meandering around."
I'm not meandering around anything. I'm exposing your blatant lies. You said that they claimed he blacked out, which is either untrue or unknowable. As for his drinking habits, Kavanaugh never claimed to be light drinker. He said that he liked beer, but he didn't black out. Neither of those 2 statements have been proven false.
"On March 28, 2003, Kavanaugh received eight pages of the leak with the subject "For use and not distribution,"."
And? That doesn't in any way prove that Kavanaugh knew where Miranda got the information from. Lots of confidential information and marked "for use and not distribution".
"Yes, giving legal advice on a matter in involving yourself, that's kind of why companies have lawyers. Legal advice."
The Bush administration isn't a company. Kavanaugh briefly advised it on all kinds of matters, but that doesn't make him "involved" in them. He would only be involved if he were part of the decision-making process on the policies themselves.
"Not that I think Victim's in any way a real person, he's a notable troll who doesn't really believe anything"
I haven't responded to one of your political argument baits in a long time, but there are some things I simply won't stand for. Misinformation is one of them. I will not allow you to spread outlandish misinformation and lies unchecked.
I was at a party where a sexual assault occurred. Didn't find out until months after the fact
Look at the calender, you can see the event. It seems you're arguing from a fallacy by authority. Next.
And you admit he stated falsehoods. Yeah, that was perjury, not that he had a slip of the tongue. And with that, you're admitted you're wrong.
That quote you have isn't the one I'm referring to. I'm talking about this one "All four witnesses who were allegedly at the event have said it didn't happen, including Dr Ford's long time friend, Miss Kaiser." This is a lie, this is perjury.
1. You've never been to a party, don't lie. 2. No, not at all, if you don't know the sexual assault happens, you wouldn't remember.
Words can change meaning, but people don't make up their own private meanings for words to use in situations they could just as likely be using the other meaning.
You skipped the rest of the quote because it didn't fit your narrative. Looking at it, it becomes clear that Renate didn't even know about this, so it wasn't an in-joke shared between them.
Wrong. “There is no doubt in my mind that while at Yale, he was a big partier, often drank to excess, and there had to be a number of nights where he does not remember,” Lynne Brookes
“I definitely saw him on multiple occasions stumbling drunk where he could not have rational control over his actions or clear recollection of them,” Daniel Livan, who lived in Kavanaugh’s dorm.
"That's not the Brett I knew as soon as I met him in college. That's not the Brett I saw during four years at Yale, and I don't think many of his answers were credible." Liz Swisher
It does, actually, emails have, you know, headings and it says who they're from. That's how emails work.
Giving legal advice to something once again makes you involved in it, be it the government or a company. Next.
I like it when Victim pretends to have some moral standards rather than jumping in on defending a rapist. He really rapidly slides around the place to find his views. Nevertheless, Kavanaugh's perjured himself multiple times.
shoutout to victim educating you liberal swine for a full week
So its finally settled, Kavanaugh is on the supreme court.
I guess there's been suggestions about trying to impeach him as soon as possible, but that probably won't happen.
The timing for all of this is suspect. The FBI investigated (mind you, with big limitations) and found nothing.
Do I think he did it? No. And there obviously isn't enough evidence to prove otherwise. If enough evidence comes out (which is highly unlikely), then castrate him.
Do I care? Yes. People become way too emotional when dealing with rape cases and that results in them losing the ability to think objectively (not that most could anyway). False rape accusations are bullshit. False rape accusations for the sake of political gain is outright disgusting. Again, I'd gladly retract this if he's proven to be a rapist.
And again, a victim would be far more likely to come forward if their rapist was about to become Supreme Court Judge. If I was raped tomorrow, I doubt I'd report it, but if in twenty years he was Supreme Court judge, I'd have to do something.
The Irish were raped enough the past weekend.
Hey, McGregor somehow ended up as the one with more tact, the Irish aren't cheating sons of bitches.
Still, he was raped.
I mean, he wasn't. He fought well.
That's what people do before being raped.
On a serious note, he's a great fighter and I'd like to see the vermin who hit him in the back being pitted against him in a fight.
I'm a big McGregor fan myself, and even I can admit that he didn't fight well. This was actually his worst performance that I've seen from him. Khabib absolutely mauled the guy and dominated him every round (except the 3rd). I still love McGregor, but I and many others overestimated his ability. Maybe it's ring rust, maybe nerves, who knows. Either way, McGregor got destroyed convincingly and I hope he comes back from this.
As to the brawl, Khabib was being a sensitive bitch. His logic is basically, "He hurt my feelings and I got mad." Trash talk is a part of the sport. Then again, this may be Khabib getting back at for the attack on his bus, but again, you already paid him back by kicking his ass in the octagon.
Yeah, that's utter shit from someone who doesn't understand the sport. McGregor fought insanely well, and fucking preserved through serious shit. Khabib was just fucking insane. Saying it was his poorest fight is sometihng a dullard with no brains would say because they saw McGregor got the shit beat out of him rather than they judged how he actually fought.
Given that I both train and watch MMA I'd say McGregor did poorly. You're just being a blind dickrider. Khabib smothered him in all rounds except 3 (he smothered him, just not as much) and the biggest, cleanest shot was landed by Khabib. McGregor looked tired after the second round while Khabib was comparatively in much better shape. McGregor didn't even win a single round in that fight. So yeah, his worst performance. Have you ever seen McGregor get shut down like that? I haven't.
I bet you're also one of those fools that think McGregor did "well" against Mayweather.
See, throughout the entire paragraph, all that you actually say is "In comparison to Khabib". Khabib got the best shot. Khabib was winning in all rounds. Khabib was in better shape. That's not how anyone with any knowledge would determine how well someone is fighting, that's how a retard picks it, by saying "Ugh, he's losing so much! He must be doing bad!" You've made and lost your case in three fucking lines scumfuck.
Lol and you have neither countered or made any point. How about Khabib landed numerous takedowns, Khabib landed significantly more shots, Khabib controlled almost every second of the fight? You have nothing. McGregor is a great fighter, but he didn't deliver here in the slightest. When people are cheering just because you manage to stand up, you know you're fucked.
No, because the points are irrelevant. Khabib was the better fighter. But that's not showing McGregor fought poorly, just that he was outmatched. The fact that you thought so proved that you didn't know shit about how McGregor fought compared to his other fights, you just knew he lost the hardest, and you don't know shit about anything.
Nah, I think your dickriding is just getting out of hand. I've seen McGregor fight before. I've seen him fight strikers, wrestlers, grapplers, etc. Never in any fight of his, not even his prior 3 loses, has he ever been handled like that. Keep in mind, he's always fought tough competitors. McGregor didn't even look this bad against Chad Mendez. Hell, the last guy Khabib fought didn't even have a full camp and he outperformed McGregor.
I'm not a McGregor fan, so I'm not sure what you're talking about other than throwing shit, but no, you've made your argument already, and it showed you didn't know what you were talking about. The fact that you only brought up how McGregor was in contrast to Khabib shows you know fuck all, and you're one of the faggots who pretends he's a hard man and he knows UFC so he can chat shit.
Not surprising, given your character, but boring.
XD You've literally made no arguments aside from, "McGregor did well! Look at his past fights!" So tell me, Steve, how did McGregor do well in this fight? I've already asked you and you keep dodging, but hopefully you can say something of substance.
Again, I pointed out how your argument showed you didn't know shit about fighting or UFC. I explained that McGregor fought well by persevering and surviving ages on the floor when the man is not a fighter that does well when taken to the ground. You're just retreating now that you've been proven wrong, and trying to go on the offensive, and it's pathetic. Crawl back to whatever hole you came out of, faggot, you've already showed everyone here you're a pathetic individual and I'm glad you're unhappy with your life.
That's like saying McGregor did well against Mayweather because he lasted so long. You're wrong, again. Like Mayweather, Khabib made a bit of an alteration to his usual plan specifically for McGregor. Khabib wanted the KO while standing just so he could humiliate him, or did you not know that? Of course you didn't. Had Khabib fought the way he normally does, he likely would have "changed his face." He'll, Khabib dominated the first round while not doing anything but smothering McGregor. Normally Khabib is more aggressive, but McGregor benefited from Khabib's game plan.
Again, this is coming from the dude who argued that Khabib fighting better meant McGregor was bad. It's the useless gibbering of someone who had to google what he could about the fact to repeat it, all so he could play the hard man to an audience of people who find him pathetic.
Khabib fought better and McGregor performed worse than a guy that didn't have a full camp. Facts. The McGregor that fought Chad Mendez would have performed much better.
Again, bullshit of a man whose only response was "Khabib fought better!". The fact that you were able to Google some shit isn't changing anyone's opinion of you, pussy.
According to whom? You're saying you'd be fine with not reporting the rape, thus allowing the rapist to continue to harm others, up until he was about to land a big job? The timing is just fishy. Especially when Feinstein didn't even bring the allegations up immediately after they were brought to her. She waited until right before he was about to get confirmed.
Sabley and I both said that in her shoes, we'd do the same thing, so at least us. And not reporting the rape isn't allowing the rapist to continue to harm others, because reporting it is almost guaranteed to do nothing unless you have the evidence to convict. It's not worth the humiliation and the shitstorm and the awfulness of it all, made infinitely worse by absolute shit eating scum like you who blames victims for not reporting.
So yeah, you've had several people tell you that if it was them, they wouldn't report but would absolutely tell someone if their rapist was about to become a symbol for justice in the country. How the fuck is that fishy? If someone who did someone awful to me was about to become the supreme court judge, God fucking knows I'd say something even if I didn't when it happened.
Not victim blaming. If someone rapes you and you don't report it (generally, rape kits gather all the evidence they'll need), then you'll live with the knowledge of knowing that should the rapist rape again, you could have prevented it.
Are you not paying attention? Feinstein was told about the allegations and waited until he was about to be confirmed to say anything. Yeah, that's fishy.
Yeah, that's literally what victim blaming is, you fucking scum. People like you should be shot.
Anyhow, no, rape kits don't prove shit in the slightest, and it's pretty impossible to convict someone.
And when Feinstein went forward doesn't change the allegations, you fucking moron, her credibility is irrelevant to the truth of the allegations, you thick stupid cunt.
Goodness, are you actually raging right now? Why so emotional, Steve?
Think of it like this: if I kill someone, and you know I've killed someone, and you don't report it, you'll know that you could have prevented my next killing.
Yes they do, because DNA. As long as you get one asap.
No, but it shows the motivation of sabotaging his nomination. Tell me, would you wait a few weeks to go after rape allegations? Oh, maybe in your torrent of emotion you just forgot about it. What truth? There's no evidence and many witnesses don't back her story.
Now, this is a common card people play. The "Is Steve getting angry?! LOL!" card is a common one, almost used as frequently as the "I'm not emotional!!!" card. Both are weak and boring, try something else.
Yes, now go through that step by step. You are blaming the victim. That is victim blaming. If you're going to do something, at least have the balls to do it and stand by it, pussy.
1. Dr Ford's situation wouldn't warrant a rape kit, it wouldn't find anything. 2. Rape kits don't prove rape happened, you could just say it was consensual sex. 3. Rape kits aren't always effective. 4. Rape kits are incredibly invasive, and yeah, I think it's pretty fucking brutal to ask a person who was raped recently to go down and go through an awful procedure with strangers that still won't prove anything.
Feinstein's motivations are irrelevant to whether Ford's telling the truth or not. You bringing them up is a coward's attempt to muddy the waters, and little else.
Ah, the typical Steve card of saying that anything he can't form a rebuttal against is a "card" typically played against him, then he demands you find new material when, deep down, he's crying like an insecure bitch. This typically leads to the next Steve card, "I'm arguing online because it amuses me! Can't you tell that I'm a narcissist that loves the attention? You can't see me right now, but I'm currently fiddling with myself behind my keyboard because I'm enjoying this so fucking much!!!!" Your act is as stale as McGregor's fighting skill in that last fight.
Blaming the victim would be me saying it's their fault. It's the rapist's fault for raping, but the first rapee could have prevented the next rape.
I'm not too sure about that, but even if that were the case, the witness testimonies aren't confirming her story. There are few, if any methods of evidence collecting that "always" work, Steve. This is a nonargument. And no, a rape kit wouldn't prove it, but it would be a good first step in collecting the evidence you'd need for a conviction.
Me bringing them up is to highlight that is a politically motivated witch hunt, and that's all it will be until actual evidence surfaces.
Now, this is the bit where someone immediately takes my pointing out how someone's falling into a trend, and trying to turn it around. It's also pretty common, it's basically "I know you are, but what am I?" It's unsatisfying, really, and this one is especially bad, given that everyone on the site berates me for arguing for arguing's sake while not truly standing by what I'm saying, so literally anyone who reads this would
That's blaming. You're victim blaming. You're putting blame on the victim. This isn't too complicated.
You're not sure? Well fuck off and learn some shit so you can get sure, faggot, because that's the case. And no, the witnesses haven't confirmed or denied the story, because it turns out, no one remembers a random party from thirty years ago. Shocker. And no, a rape kit wouldn't prove it, or be usable in this situation in any regard.
Now, it's actually not. You were originally talking about Ford not bringing it up. You changed it to Feinstein when you were proven wrong. It's a real faggot move, you know, maybe try harder.
No it's not, but my point is clearly going over your head.
Their stories don't match up with Ford's. Some witnesses are saying they were never there, others don't confirm Ford's claims. Ford herself even has some holes in her story. Oh? And how do you know that? It certainly would be more help than these testimonies.
I said Feinstein didn't bring it up after being told about it. Get your facts straight.
And the "Ugh, you just don't get it!" Nice.
No, the witnesses didn't say they weren't there. They said they don't remember.
And I know a rape kit wouldn't work because there'd be no semen or blood to test. How would that have proved anything?
Why would she bring up this accusation after so many years, with apparently no external motivation aside from a promotion to the accused? This is quite suspicious to me.
That's referring to Ford, as you've been doing, since Feinstein didn't know about it for many years, you lying fuck. It's a strangely useless fuck that has to lie, knowing they're wrong and are talking shit, to keep wiggling around.
Some did say they weren't there. One of the males that was questioned claimed he never went to the party nor is he familiar with the people Ford said he knew.
No semen or blood? Questionable story? Witnesses not confirming said story? Lack of evidence? Jeez, Steve, I don't know what to make of this.
Especially when Feinstein didn't even bring the allegations up immediately after they were brought to her. She waited until right before he was about to get confirmed.
My second response in this discussion where I directly tell you I'm referring to Feinstein. People make late accusations, but the fact that Feinstein was told about it and didn't say anything until the anticipated confirmation was fishy. You're just making shit up at this point.
No, they said they don't remember. You're lying.
Ford's entire story mentions there being no semen or blood. What, is that not good enough for you? Or are you just being a cunt because you were proven wrong?
No, you changed to Feinstein after being proven to be lying. Try again.
Some did, some didn't. You're wrong.
No, it's not good enough for me or the legal system.
No I didn't. Pay attention, it's very explicit in my first posts.
Uhmm....I never said that.
Fine, show evidence.
A rape kit would not have been useful. You were wrong. I was right. You tried to bullshit to avoid admitting it.
Oh hang on, you're not Zassuen, you're some different random newb of the night. Delightful. My apologies, that was a mistake. Disregard this point, and replace it with one pointing out that Feinstein is irrelevant here.
Sure, I'll concede that a rape kit is useless is there isn't any samples for the rape kit to have in the first place.
I know how you are about facts, but bear with me here:
"[Smyth] truthfully answered every question the FBI asked him and, consistent with the information he previously provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he indicated that he has no knowledge of the small party or gathering described by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, nor does he have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh," reads a statement from Bruce issued Monday.
Keyser, a close friend of Ford's who was reportedly questioned by the FBI, previously denied being at the "gathering," too.
"Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," Howard Walsh, a man "who said he has been 'engaged in the limited capacity' of corresponding with the committee on behalf of Keyser," told Politico.
From the Washington Post:
Even Mark Judge, who Ford says was in the bedroom when Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, has not denied that such an episode took place. His sworn statement to the committee says "I have no memory of this alleged incident," ''do not recall the party" and "never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."
In another statement, Patrick J. Smyth, identified by Ford as being among those downstairs at the party, says "I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.'"
And the lawyer for Ford's friend, Leland Ingham Keyser, said in a statement: "Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, without, Dr. Ford."
Had no knowledge. Not "Didn't go." Had no knowledge. That means he didn't remember it if it did happen, not knew whether it happened. Keyser said the same, that she had no recollection of the party. On Saturday, September 29th, Keyser's attorney issued the following statement to CNN: "Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” So yeah, you're wrong.
Stop trying to read too much into this. There's no case here. Give it up. FBI already stated that there was nothing here.
Saying they have no knowledge is basically legal speak for saying no. They've denied the allegations and one of them even said that he doesn't remember Bret behaving in the way Ford described. That would be a hell of an event to forget, but whatever. No evidence, no case, no conviction. God damn I love this country.
"Stop rebutting me. Please. Stop. No."
Dude, no it isn't. I study law, it's the farthest thing from it. Legal speak says that "I don't know" is neither "No" nor "Yes". It's the equivalent of having a nothing answer, it doesn't push the scales either way. You're a lying bitch, and when the case goes against you, you scramble back to your pathetic points. Fuck off, cockroach.
Person A: Person B and C were at the party, and person D was in the same room where the incident happened with Person E.
Person B: I didn't know anything about that party or these allegations against Person E.
Person C: Not only do I not remember being at that party, I don't even know if Person A and Person E were ever at the same party together. I don't even know who Person E is.
Person D: I don't remember any of that, but I CAN say for certain that I never saw Person E act in that way before.
GG, Steve. There's no case here. If you were a law student worth half your substantial weight, you'd realize this. Stick to your little Irish law, you're not ready for the big leagues.
Did you see this event? No. That wasn't what they said. They said "I don't remember". Not evidence. Saying you don't know something or don't remember an incident is not fucking a "No" by any standards. Once again, this is you pretending to know shit you don't know, because you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. You've been reduced to weak whimpering at this point, and while pathetic as usual, it's far more dull than your usual brand of bullshit.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty." I don't know how you backwards, Irish savages do things there, but here in the great land of the United States, we don't convict unless proven beyond reasonable doubt. Ford's testimony doesn't hold up and the witnesses don't support her story in the slightest. And Mark Judge explicitly said he never saw Bret do what he was accused of. Ford said that as it was happening, they made eye contact. It's fair to say that if they locked eyes at one point, Mark would also have seen Bret on top of her, but he denies seeing any of that. So tell me, boy, is there a case here? Any proof that Bret raped her?
And now you're changing the subject because you were proven wrong on whether "I don't remember" means something didn't happen. Pathetic. A weak excuse for the lies and bullshit you've thrown in here, but expected from someone of your caliber. I suppose I should think to people with the barest beginnings of intelligence.
I already told you that it equates denial. Accept it or not. And you're conveniently dodging the fact that Judge directly contradicted her story. Quit running from the facts, kiddo. Maybe you should have tried to study abroad in the U.S. because you don't seem to be learning much in Ireland.
It doesn't, that's a legal fact. And Mark Judge was involved, what the fuck do you think goes on in that situation? And as has been discussed, I am studying abroad in Philadelphia as part of my course, you fucking retard. You depressive fuck, your sadness is your own fault and I'm satisfied beyond joy in reveling in that fact.
Wait, you're in Philly? What college are you attending?
Not at the moment, no, but my course is with Temple.
Still in shock that Ford was possibly raped... I wonder how Leora is handling all of this.
Probably had to help put his clothes back on afterwards.