• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kavanaugh vs Blasey - this is real bizarre wtf piece of news

Visbek said:
:roll:

1) Montgomery County in the 90s was not huge. It's not a surprise at all that their families interacted at some point.

2) The idea that someone was going to wait over 30 years to take revenge on someone for... what exactly? Presiding over a foreclosure? Please.



This is not about "motive." As I said, this is about desperate attempts to discredit an alleged victim.
Click to expand...
Montgomery County was not sparsely populated in the 90's. It's Maryland, not the wild west. It's a suburb of D.C. fer crissake. Just be honest. Don't try to run a line of crap here.
It certainly is about motive of the accuser. There are no witnesses.
So why DID she wait for 30 years? They don't have newspapers or TV when he began his service in the Courts?
 
Kal'Stang said:
If holding down a woman and grinding on a woman and trying to remove her clothes isn't considered attempted rape then apparently I don't know the definition of it.

And yes, I just used "rape" instead of "attempted rape". I was being lazy. Sue me.
Click to expand...

go talk to a DA. You are embellishing her story.
 
Saladin4 said:
Yes they are...This poor woman will be bashed, threatened and vilified...But she is staying strong to deliver the truth....She is in some ways...An American hero
Click to expand...

could be worse-if she had done this to the clintons, there's would have been a good chance she'd end up being reported as a "suicide victim" after being shot in the back twice or more.
 
People should have protection from false accusations. If you don't think so, and believe that accusers should always be believed then you have a twisted view on justice.

MTAtech said:
Because "raging psychos" should have no protection from would be rapists.
Click to expand...
 
I never said she was - although you seem to be very comfortable with her being all those things you came up with.


NeverTrumpGOP said:
You people are seriously screwed in the head. There is nothing definitive linking her to being a raging psycho, a slut, or someone who seduces her patients. But don't let that get in the way of defending Mr. King Elite Frat Boy.
Click to expand...
 
Saladin4 said:
Yes they are...This poor woman will be bashed, threatened and vilified...But she is staying strong to deliver the truth....She is in some ways...An American hero
Click to expand...

In your mind does she approach 'Resistance Royalty'. Does she take the crown that has been worn by the likes of David Hogg, Stormy Danials,
John McCain, Jeff Flake or Adam Schiff all heroes of the looneys for segments of time during Trump's presidency. If you think this one is
the vehicle to Trump's or even Kavanaugh's demise you are in for another rude awakening!

Under the harsh lights of close inspection she'll crash & burn!
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Hmmmm, that's a familiar pattern.
Oh wait, did you say STALLING proceedings? Hmmmmm...whatever gets you through the night.
Click to expand...

and if you want to whine about Gartland, then I will note the racist block of Miguel Estrada by racist dems
 
TurtleDude said:
could be worse-if she had done this to the clintons, there's would have been a good chance she'd end up being reported as a "suicide victim" after being shot in the back twice or more.
Click to expand...
Down to CT's. This is from one of the supposed intellectual powerhouses of the right.

Getting sad on dp.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
slick said:
In your mind does she approach 'Resistance Royalty'. Does she take the crown that has been worn by the likes of David Hogg, Stormy Danials,
John McCain, Jeff Flake or Adam Schiff all heroes of the looneys for segments of time during Trump's presidency. If you think this one is
the vehicle to Trump's or even Kavanaugh's demise you are in for another rude awakening!

Under the harsh lights of close inspection she'll crash & burn!
Click to expand...

Another fallen woman of the demoncrat night crashes and burns.
 
bubbabgone said:
Montgomery County was not sparsely populated in the 90's. It's Maryland, not the wild west. It's a suburb of D.C. fer crissake. Just be honest. Don't try to run a line of crap here.
Click to expand...
:roll:

I'm not the one running a line here. Montgomery had around 750,000 residents in the 90s. It is hardly inconceivable that a judge in Montgomery presided over a case there.

Meanwhile, you seem to be stuck in some TV fantasy where someone wants revenge!!! because... the judge oversaw a foreclosure? Please.


It certainly is about motive of the accuser. There are no witnesses.
So why DID she wait for 30 years? They don't have newspapers or TV when he began his service in the Courts?
Click to expand...
:roll:

There aren't often witnesses to sexual assaults and rapes. Does that mean they don't happen? That all accusations are false? Does that apply to Paula Jones? The numerous women who have accused Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein?

You do know that things were different in the 90s, right? Heck, when it comes to sexual assault, things were different two years ago. 15 year old girls didn't go to the police with this sort of thing; for the most part, they still don't. She didn't even mention it to anyone until 2012, when she brought it up during therapy.

She was in talks with the Washington Post, but backed off going public because she thought Kavanaugh would be confirmed, and she would go through hell (like slagging her based on her parents' foreclosure...) for nothing. Her accusations only came to light because someone leaked it to The Intercept. Wow, yeah, that really sounds like someone bent on revenge, so intent on it that she backed off of public accusations while hoping that someone would leak her story to a relatively obscure investigative journalistic outlet wait what?!?

It's obvious here that you're starting with a conclusion ("she's lying!") and searching for anything to justify your pre-determined conclusion. In the process, you're engaging in the time-old repugnant practice of attacking the alleged victim.
 
Saladin4 said:
Evidence mounting this was a brutal assault by Kavanaugh...Drunk or not the man is a menace...Thankfully this brave woman has come forward.....To tell the truth
Click to expand...

What evidence is mounting. There is still absolutely nothing but a single unsubstantiated 30 year old claim.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
bubbabgone said:
I take it you haven't heard anything about the attorney or seen any of her TV appearances.
Click to expand...

I did a search and the only thing I found was reference to the attorney saying that Ford should produce the witnesses to the alleged attack, which seemed ridiculous. Is there crazy stuff out there?
 
Visbek said:
:roll:

I'm not the one running a line here. Montgomery had around 750,000 residents in the 90s. It is hardly inconceivable that a judge in Montgomery presided over a case there.

Meanwhile, you seem to be stuck in some TV fantasy where someone wants revenge!!! because... the judge oversaw a foreclosure? Please.



:roll:

There aren't often witnesses to sexual assaults and rapes. Does that mean they don't happen? That all accusations are false? Does that apply to Paula Jones? The numerous women who have accused Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein?

You do know that things were different in the 90s, right? Heck, when it comes to sexual assault, things were different two years ago. 15 year old girls didn't go to the police with this sort of thing; for the most part, they still don't. She didn't even mention it to anyone until 2012, when she brought it up during therapy.

She was in talks with the Washington Post, but backed off going public because she thought Kavanaugh would be confirmed, and she would go through hell (like slagging her based on her parents' foreclosure...) for nothing. Her accusations only came to light because someone leaked it to The Intercept. Wow, yeah, that really sounds like someone bent on revenge, so intent on it that she backed off of public accusations while hoping that someone would leak her story to a relatively obscure investigative journalistic outlet wait what?!?

It's obvious here that you're starting with a conclusion ("she's lying!") and searching for anything to justify your pre-determined conclusion. In the process, you're engaging in the time-old repugnant practice of attacking the alleged victim.
Click to expand...

She contacted Feinstein but told her she wanted to stay anonymous at the same time she contacted the WAPO.
That's a helluva way to demonstrate you expect to maintain anonymity ... talk to the WAPO and take a polygraph ... that shows you anticipate loss of anonymity.
 
Nickyjo said:
I did a search and the only thing I found was reference to the attorney saying that Ford should produce the witnesses to the alleged attack, which seemed ridiculous. Is there crazy stuff out there?
Click to expand...

Crazy stuff? I dunno about crazy, but partisanship exposed by her hypocrisy ... yeah.

“Paula Jones' suit is very, very, very weak,” Katz said on CNN’s “Talkback Live” in March 1998 in a discussion about Jones’ claims against Clinton, according to a show transcript. “She's alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace.” - Debra Katz

In other words this MeToo attorney's dedication to the cause is dependent on the identity of the accuser and the accused. It can go either way.
 
Maryland state land records show that Ralph and Paula Blasey purchased a house in Potomac, Maryland, in June 1977. According to Montgomery County Circuit Court records, in August 1996 a company called UMLIC-Eight Corporation initiated foreclosure proceedings against the couple.

However, by December of that year the Blaseys were able to refinance the mortgage, and in January 1997 UMLIC filed a motion to dismiss their earlier petition. Judge Martha Kavanaugh granted that motion on 4 February 1997, thus formally bringing an end to the foreclosure proceedings against the Blaseys.

The claim that Kavanaugh “ruled against” Ralph and Paul Blasey, central to the conspiracy theory about their daughter’s sexual assault allegations made 21 years later, is therefore false.
Click to expand...

Doh! Thanks for starting this Thread in the Conspiracy Theory section!
 
bubbabgone said:
Crazy stuff? I dunno about crazy, but partisanship exposed by her hypocrisy ... yeah.

“Paula Jones' suit is very, very, very weak,” Katz said on CNN’s “Talkback Live” in March 1998 in a discussion about Jones’ claims against Clinton, according to a show transcript. “She's alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace.” - Debra Katz

In other words this MeToo attorney's dedication to the cause is dependent on the identity of the accuser and the accused. It can go either way.
Click to expand...

That’s it? So she’s partisan. She is also an attorney, a hired gun. Think Rudy G.
 
bubbabgone said:
She contacted Feinstein but told her she wanted to stay anonymous at the same time she contacted the WAPO.
That's a helluva way to demonstrate you expect to maintain anonymity ... talk to the WAPO and take a polygraph ... that shows you anticipate loss of anonymity.
Click to expand...
Let's be a bit more precise, shall we?

She was considering going public months ago. She took a polygraph because her lawyer recommended it. The attorney knew that if Ford went public, she would be attacked in all sorts of ways (such as accusing her of wanting revenge because of an old foreclosure case...) and wanted to bolster her credibility.

She sent a letter to her Representative, and then to Feinstein. In the letter to Feinstein, she explicitly wrote: "As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak." She even signed it "in confidence."

She was talking to the Washington Post. She also told them not to run the story, because she thought his confirmation was a lock, and decided she didn't want her life wrecked in a vain attempt to get her story out.

Feinstein forwarded the letter to the FBI, but otherwise sat on it. The Post didn't run the story. It was the Intercept (a small investigative journalism site) that broke the story, and Ford only came forward a few days after the story broke; it was inevitable at that point anyway.

I.e. Ford changed her mind. She wasn't going to go public. Someone else wound up making that choice for her. That doesn't sound like someone hell-bent on revenge, it sounds like someone who wants to tell a story but was concerned about the consequences. Based on what we've already seen, it's obvious that her concerns were warranted.
 
Nickyjo said:
That’s it? So she’s partisan. She is also an attorney, a hired gun. Think Rudy G.
Click to expand...

She wasn't Bill Clinton's attorney. It just sounded like it because he was the accused. Think partisan hack.
 
Visbek said:
Let's be a bit more precise, shall we?

She was considering going public months ago. She took a polygraph because her lawyer recommended it. The attorney knew that if Ford went public, she would be attacked in all sorts of ways (such as accusing her of wanting revenge because of an old foreclosure case...) and wanted to bolster her credibility.

She sent a letter to her Representative, and then to Feinstein. In the letter to Feinstein, she explicitly wrote: "As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak." She even signed it "in confidence."

She was talking to the Washington Post. She also told them not to run the story, because she thought his confirmation was a lock, and decided she didn't want her life wrecked in a vain attempt to get her story out.

Feinstein forwarded the letter to the FBI, but otherwise sat on it. The Post didn't run the story. It was the Intercept (a small investigative journalism site) that broke the story, and Ford only came forward a few days after the story broke; it was inevitable at that point anyway.

I.e. Ford changed her mind. She wasn't going to go public. Someone else wound up making that choice for her. That doesn't sound like someone hell-bent on revenge, it sounds like someone who wants to tell a story but was concerned about the consequences. Based on what we've already seen, it's obvious that her concerns were warranted.
Click to expand...

Revenge for the foreclosure, not so much, revenge for political reasons, yeah, so much.
Like I said, why was she "talking to the Washington Post" at all instead of letting Lady Di handle it?
Other things in your post like "until we have further opportunity to speak" and "told them not to run the story" make you sound very naive about what's going on.
 
bubbabgone said:
She wasn't Bill Clinton's attorney. It just sounded like it because he was the accused. Think partisan hack.
Click to expand...

No big deal for her to contradict herself when she is representing someone on the other side of the divide years later. What does this have to do with the case at hand?
 
bubbabgone said:
Revenge for the foreclosure, not so much, revenge for political reasons, yeah, so much.
Click to expand...
So you've completely abandoned your original line of argument in this thread, then?

Or maybe you found out that Martha Kavanaugh ruled to dismiss the foreclosure proceedings, as in she made a decision favorable to the Blaseys, who were therefore able to keep their home? (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brett-kavanaugh-foreclosure-accuser-parents/)

I guess that's a sign of progress. Sort of. Or not.


Like I said, why was she "talking to the Washington Post" at all instead of letting Lady Di handle it?
Click to expand...
Like I said, she was seriously considering going public, and changed her mind. Please try to read.


Other things in your post like "until we have further opportunity to speak" and "told them not to run the story" make you sound very naive about what's going on.
Click to expand...
:roll:

No, I'm just reporting facts.

She literally wrote that she wanted her name kept in confidence until she could speak to Feinstein. I didn't make that up, it's what Ford wrote in her letter.

She was talking to the WaPo back in July. She refused to go on the record. The WaPo wasn't going to write an article unless she went on the record. Once the Intercept broke the story, she decided to come forward. The idea that Ford or WaPo would tip off The Intercept is absurd; if she wanted to go public, she would have given WaPo permission.

So again.... It's obvious that this is not someone going for revenge of any sort. She was hesitant about coming forward, again because of exactly the kind of attacks and misrepresentations and victim-shaming like what we saw in the OP of this thread.
 
Nickyjo said:
No big deal for her to contradict herself when she is representing someone on the other side of the divide years later. What does this have to do with the case at hand?
Click to expand...

It has to do with the extreme "flexibility" (to be generous) of the position of the adversaries.
When it demonstrates such obvious hypocrisy it signals there's something more going on.
 
Visbek said:
So you've completely abandoned your original line of argument in this thread, then?

Or maybe you found out that Martha Kavanaugh ruled to dismiss the foreclosure proceedings, as in she made a decision favorable to the Blaseys, who were therefore able to keep their home? (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brett-kavanaugh-foreclosure-accuser-parents/)

I guess that's a sign of progress. Sort of. Or not.



Like I said, she was seriously considering going public, and changed her mind. Please try to read.



:roll:

No, I'm just reporting facts.

She literally wrote that she wanted her name kept in confidence until she could speak to Feinstein. I didn't make that up, it's what Ford wrote in her letter.

She was talking to the WaPo back in July. She refused to go on the record. The WaPo wasn't going to write an article unless she went on the record. Once the Intercept broke the story, she decided to come forward. The idea that Ford or WaPo would tip off The Intercept is absurd; if she wanted to go public, she would have given WaPo permission.

So again.... It's obvious that this is not someone going for revenge of any sort. She was hesitant about coming forward, again because of exactly the kind of attacks and misrepresentations and victim-shaming like what we saw in the OP of this thread.
Click to expand...

Show me where I said foreclosure was indicative of motive. I specifically said "who the hell knows".
I read the Snopes article and commented on it's deception earlier today.
I know what she wrote in the letter to Feinstein.
She told Feinstein to keep her anonymous but she was talking to WAPO because she was considering going public - all in July - and then someone other than those 2 who knew nothing about it and had no political motive somehow got it to the Intercept. How does that happen?
Boy, Christine and her attorney must really have been fit to be tied, huh.
Yeah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom