[W:56] Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

[Grokmaster]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

Nope, the therapist notes show absolutely ZERO naming of ANY names let alone Kavanaugh. Her husband has of course joined her in claiming that she told him it was Kavanaugh, which of course makes one wonder what sort of husband wouldn't do anything about his wife being nearly raped. And of course his fishy language on his own.

And her story (and her husband's) now doesn't match up to the therapist notes, and she can't remember where or when this actually supposedly happened. She has zero, zilch, zip other than her own word, which at this point is not very valuable given her contradictions and apparently memory loss.

Exactly.

She has NO IDEA WHERE or WHEN her Huge Trauma occurred...but wants the FBI to "depose all witnesses" from WHEN she cannot REMEMBER, who were WHERE SHE CANNOT REMEMBER.

 

[Grokmaster]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

Yes, and that is a problem for her. But it would be interesting to see if the therapist now claims to remember hearing Kavanaugh's name, but not writing it down (full disclosure: I will suspect some BS if so, unless that therapist wrote that name somewhere else or has didactic memory).

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

The whole thing look like a contrived, smear campaign, and her SUDDEN "demands" before she will testify, EVEN IN PRIVATE, make it seem contrived even moreso….

 

[cpwill]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

Increasingly it does look set-up, which is not the same as "contrived". I would like to know why she took a lie detector test in August, when she claims that at that time she intended to remain unknown, and anonymous.

The whole thing look like a contrived, smear campaign, and her SUDDEN "demands" before she will testify, EVEN IN PRIVATE, make it seem contrived even moreso….

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[DiAnna]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

The "terms" were what she had already said she would do: come and tell her story, under oath. The FBI has already declined this case, as she well knows. Why not demand a pony.

You are right that this is ridiculous, but it is ridiculous that we ought give it any more worry. If she wants to testify under oath, she can. He was scheduled for Monday, but no idea if they will even bother, if she is backing out of it.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

According to what I read, the FBI needs a request for additional background checks from the WH directly. The WH has declined to make that request.

She did not agree to sit next to the man she believes tried to rape her while she was testifying against him. I cannot recall a single instance where that has ever happened.

Can you imagine??

Sen. Grassley: Dr. Ford, please tell us what happened.

Dr. Ford: (tells her story)

Sen. Grassley: Judge Kavanaugh, did you do that?

Judge Kavanaugh: I did not!

Sen. Grassley: Thank you both for your testimony. *slams gavel*

I mean, come on, cp! You can't possibly thing that's reasonable.

 

[beefheart]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

The fact that you, ONCE AGAIN, are UTTERLY INCAPABLE of even ADRESSING what I post much less, trying to refute it, certainly makes me "look" like an "intellectual poster"...COMPARED TO YOUR LAMEASS, IRRELEVANT NONSENSE.

On the porch is where all the Little Doggies ( you know...like LIGHTWEIGHTS focusing on FONT and CAPS, while trying to lecture others on "looking like an intellectual poster"...those kinds of weaklings) should stay, so they don't get hurt.

Look at you, all screaming and angry and full of personal attacks.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

According to what I read, the FBI needs a request for additional background checks from the WH directly. The WH has declined to make that request.

She did not agree to sit next to the man she believes tried to rape her while she was testifying against him. I cannot recall a single instance where that has ever happened.

Can you imagine??

Sen. Grassley: Dr. Ford, please tell us what happened.

Dr. Ford: (tells her story)

Sen. Grassley: Judge Kavanaugh, did you do that?

Judge Kavanaugh: I did not!

Sen. Grassley: Thank you both for your testimony. *slams gavel*

I mean, come on, cp! You can't possibly thing that's reasonable.

Dr Ford-who can corroborate your story?

No one

Dr Ford-what physical evidence is available to support your claim?

None

Dr Ford were you inebriated at the time this alleged incident took place?

I cannot recall

what else can she bring in terms of proof?

 

[DiAnna]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

I have seen her husband claim she named Kavanaugh, but not the therapist, whose account contradicts her current version in some other details. For my own edification, would you mind linking that for me?

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

No, I won't link it because most of it was read off original documents by television analysts. Through her attorney, Dr. Ford has said that her therapist misunderstood some details, and noted that 4 men were involved. The therapist thought all were in the room with her; only two of them actually were in the room.

Look, you don't believe her, and I get that. I'm frankly more concerned that two people have written commentaries about knowing for a fact that Kavanaugh lied to congress in 2006, but no one seems to give a fat flying fig about that in their haste to confirm him before the election.

But I am seriously annoyed when Grassley makes nice in public, saying "of course she should be heard", then sets terms that he knows no victim of sexual assault would ever agree to; like being seated next to the man she believed tried to rape her while she painfully tells every humiliating detail in public for the very first time. That is what got my dander up, the obvious two-faced hypocrisy of pretending one thing, planning another and thinking the public is stupid enough not to recognize it.

Either way, Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed, that's obvious. But to be so brazenly duplicitous, that pisses me off.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

Yes, and that is a problem for her. But it would be interesting to see if the therapist now claims to remember hearing Kavanaugh's name, but not writing it down (full disclosure: I will suspect some BS if so, unless that therapist wrote that name somewhere else or has didactic memory).

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Yeah, there is no way the therapist would have remembered the name. But I also wouldn’t have expected the therapist to write Kavanaugh’s name down? Why would she? What would his name have to do with any family counseling she would provide them at the time? At most I would expect him to be described as “male high school student” in any notes.

 

[DiAnna]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

Dr Ford-who can corroborate your story?

No one

Dr Ford-what physical evidence is available to support your claim?

None

Dr Ford were you inebriated at the time this alleged incident took place?

I cannot recall

what else can she bring in terms of proof?

She is not allowed to bring the two people who could corroborate that they were told many years ago about the incident, and who was involved. Do you enjoy just skipping over established facts that you find inconvenient?

Never mind. I'm honestly not interested in your answer.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

According to what I read, the FBI needs a request for additional background checks from the WH directly. The WH has declined to make that request.

She did not agree to sit next to the man she believes tried to rape her while she was testifying against him. I cannot recall a single instance where that has ever happened.

Can you imagine??

Sen. Grassley: Dr. Ford, please tell us what happened.

Dr. Ford: (tells her story)

Sen. Grassley: Judge Kavanaugh, did you do that?

Judge Kavanaugh: I did not!

Sen. Grassley: Thank you both for your testimony. *slams gavel*

I mean, come on, cp! You can't possibly thing that's reasonable.

Yes, I can imagine. It is, in fact, what we require of EVERY accuser under our system of law. You both go to the courtroom, and the accused has the right to face their accuser. It's in the Constitution and everything.

It is what she initially agreed to do. Now, after changing her story through her lawyer again, she is getting cold feet, and demanding preconditions that the FBI has already rejected (and what? Would the dimensions of the room be any different after an FBI investigation than before? How, exactly, is a previous FBI investigation supposed to alter the seating arrangement of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing?).

I'll tell you what I told Cardinal a day ago: at that point, my gut feeling was that this was going to go downhill fast for Kavanaugh, and more would come out of the woodwork. Thus far, I was dead wrong.

It makes it very simple: Kavanaugh is willing to testify under oath, where he is legally liable if he lies. She is not.



Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

I don't blame her. It's exactly what happened when Anita Hill came forward. The FBI thoroughly investigated her allegations, spoke with witnesses, sought corroboration, or lack thereof.

At least Anita Hill was not forced to sit at the same witness table with Thomas while she testified. Not the case for Dr. Ford, who will have to tell her entire story while sitting a couple of feet away from the man who she alleges pinned her down, groped her, tried to tear her clothes off and put his hand over her mouth so she couldn't scream. Oh, and BTW, she will not be allowed to bring corroborating witnesses on her behalf.

****ing outrageous.

The Judicial Committee put on a face of public accommodation, knowing it would set terms that would be impossible for her to meet. It takes weeks of research and preparation for this kind of testimony. Kavanaugh has already spent two days hunkered down in the WH with a team of aides and lawyers; meanwhile, Dr. Ford is dodging death threats, has to hire security for herself and her family, all of whom have been driven out of their own home.

I repeat: ****ing outrageous.

Supposedly that letter was written back in July. Why didn't Feinstein have it investigated then? Why wait till the last moment? And why are they both demanding that the FBI investigate this when it is NOT their jurisdiction to do so? When the FBI has already stated at least twice now that they are not going to investigate this as it is not a federal crime being talked about?

No. The timing of this. The refusal to stand under oath. Something which many people said should happen...including those that want Kavanaugh stopped from being on the SCOTUS bench. Indeed Democrats were demanding such a hearing and even got Republicans to agree to having it. Now, when it mattered she's backing out?

This is all BS. This is nothing more than a dirty underhanded trick to delay the appointment of Kavanaugh. I am no longer going to give this woman the benefit of the doubt. She is nothing more than a shill. A fake. Trying to ruin a mans reputation just because of partisan politics.

If I was on the committee for this hearing I would move to dismiss the claims and call for an immediate vote to confirm, or not, Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

 

[DiAnna]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

Yes, I can imagine. It is, in fact, what we require of EVERY accuser under our system of law. You both go to the courtroom, and the accused has the right to face their accuser. It's in the Constitution and everything. ...

I was unaware that in a courtroom, the accuser was required to be seated right next to the accused while testifying.

It is what she initially agreed to do. Now, after changing her story through her lawyer again, she is getting cold feet, and demanding preconditions that the FBI has already rejected (and what? Would the dimensions of the room be any different after an FBI investigation than before? How, exactly, is a previous FBI investigation supposed to alter the seating arrangement of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing?).

I'll tell you what I told Cardinal a day ago: at that point, my gut feeling was that this was going to go downhill fast for Kavanaugh, and more would come out of the woodwork. Thus far, I was dead wrong.

It makes it very simple: Kavanaugh is willing to testify under oath, where he is legally liable if he lies. She is not.



Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

She agreed to testify under oath. She did not agree to sit next to him while she did it; in the room, sure. But not seated next to her. Even Anita Hill wasn't treated that shabbily. Anyway, I'm pretty much done here. Have a nice evening, cp.

 

[Grokmaster]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

Now FEINSTEIN is admitting that she cannot guarantee Ford's claims are "entirely truthful", since Ford has BAILED on testifying until an "FBI INVESTIGATION" that will NEVER HAPPEN is completed.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

She is not allowed to bring the two people who could corroborate that they were told many years ago about the incident, and who was involved. Do you enjoy just skipping over established facts that you find inconvenient?

Never mind. I'm honestly not interested in your answer.

that means nothing to me. did she name kavanaugh back then? and what is her purpose of bringing this up now-why do you have such a hard time answering that question

do you get the fact I have said 40 times at least that even if he did what she claimed I DO NOT CARE since his subsequent record as an ADULT does not suggest any such repeat activity

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

Supposedly that letter was written back in July. Why didn't Feinstein have it investigated then? Why wait till the last moment? And why are they both demanding that the FBI investigate this when it is NOT their jurisdiction to do so? When the FBI has already stated at least twice now that they are not going to investigate this as it is not a federal crime being talked about?

No. The timing of this. The refusal to stand under oath. Something which many people said should happen...including those that want Kavanaugh stopped from being on the SCOTUS bench. Indeed Democrats were demanding such a hearing and even got Republicans to agree to having it. Now, when it mattered she's backing out?

This is all BS. This is nothing more than a dirty underhanded trick to delay the appointment of Kavanaugh. I am no longer going to give this woman the benefit of the doubt. She is nothing more than a shill. A fake. Trying to ruin a mans reputation just because of partisan politics.

If I was on the committee for this hearing I would move to dismiss the claims and call for an immediate vote to confirm, or not, Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

i'd move to strip Feinswine of her seat and hold Ford in contempt of the senate

 

[Grokmaster]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

that means nothing to me. did she name kavanaugh back then? and what is her purpose of bringing this up now-why do you have such a hard time answering that question

do you get the fact I have said 40 times at least that even if he did what she claimed I DO NOT CARE since his subsequent record as an ADULT does not suggest any such repeat activity

And here's an entirely new "wrinkle" in the story:


https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...accusation-can-t-say-everything-truthful.html

 

[cpwill]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

No, I won't link it because most of it was read off original documents by television analysts. Through her attorney, Dr. Ford has said that her therapist misunderstood some details, and noted that 4 men were involved. The therapist thought all were in the room with her; only two of them actually were in the room.

I have also seen that contradiction. I haven't seen the therapist name Kavanaugh. If she did that in her notes, that would be dammingly significant indeed.

On that point, though; part of my job is to assess sources of information. Contemporaneous written documentation ALWAYS outweighs later human memory, unless you can show the author to be deliberately malicious, or particularly mentally impaired. Human memory is highly malleable. The written word much less so.

Look, you don't believe her, and I get that.

Actually I do think it likely something happened. I just think her memory on it is increasingly showing itself to be unreliable, and the accusation against the judge appears to have nothing to support it, not even her own willingness to even testify to it.

I'm frankly more concerned that two people have written commentaries about knowing for a fact that Kavanaugh lied to congress in 2006, but no one seems to give a fat flying fig about that in their haste to confirm him before the election.

I've seen two separate instances of debunked claims of his lying, but not any that have stuck.

But I am seriously annoyed when Grassley makes nice in public, saying "of course she should be heard", then sets terms that he knows no victim of sexual assault would ever agree to; like being seated next to the man she believed tried to rape her while she painfully tells every humiliating detail in public for the very first time. That is what got my dander up, the obvious two-faced hypocrisy of pretending one thing, planning another and thinking the public is stupid enough not to recognize it.

Either way, Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed, that's obvious. But to be so brazenly duplicitous, that pisses me off.

BS. She said she was willing to testify, and letting the accused face his or her accuser is a bedrock of American Justice.

She was offered an opportunity to make good on her claim, and turned it down. Kavanaugh is willing to testify under conditions where he would be legally liable for any falsehood. She isn't.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

No, I won't link it because most of it was read off original documents by television analysts. Through her attorney, Dr. Ford has said that her therapist misunderstood some details, and noted that 4 men were involved. The therapist thought all were in the room with her; only two of them actually were in the room.

Look, you don't believe her, and I get that. I'm frankly more concerned that two people have written commentaries about knowing for a fact that Kavanaugh lied to congress in 2006, but no one seems to give a fat flying fig about that in their haste to confirm him before the election.

But I am seriously annoyed when Grassley makes nice in public, saying "of course she should be heard", then sets terms that he knows no victim of sexual assault would ever agree to; like being seated next to the man she believed tried to rape her while she painfully tells every humiliating detail in public for the very first time. That is what got my dander up, the obvious two-faced hypocrisy of pretending one thing, planning another and thinking the public is stupid enough not to recognize it.

Either way, Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed, that's obvious. But to be so brazenly duplicitous, that pisses me off.

What? You/She thinks Kavanaugh is going to jump between the tables and assault her in a room full of people? Puhleeze. :roll:

And there are no corroborating witnesses. Supposedly even her therapist has "gotten details wrong." Not exactly reliable huh? And her husband? :roll: There's a reason that spouses are not allowed to testify in court for/against their spouses. And what's ironic here is that while she may not be able to bring forth "witnesses" neither is Kavanaugh...and he supposedly has someone that was actually there. Much more reliable than two people she told a story to.

Oh and fyi, from my understanding Grassley wasn't even going to hold this hearing originally. But some Republican's listened to the Democrats and said that there has to be a hearing or they would vote no on Kavanaugh. So instead of blaming Grassley why not blame all those Democrat and Republican senators that demanded a hearing be made to hear the testimony of both Kavanaugh and Mrs. Ford. They wanted it, they got it. Now she's backing out of the hearing even though she originally said that she was willing to do anything. Pfft. She's a political shill. NTD. Time for the Senate to vote Kavanaugh in or not.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

Supposedly that letter was written back in July. Why didn't Feinstein have it investigated then? Why wait till the last moment? And why are they both demanding that the FBI investigate this when it is NOT their jurisdiction to do so? When the FBI has already stated at least twice now that they are not going to investigate this as it is not a federal crime being talked about?

No. The timing of this. The refusal to stand under oath. Something which many people said should happen...including those that want Kavanaugh stopped from being on the SCOTUS bench. Indeed Democrats were demanding such a hearing and even got Republicans to agree to having it. Now, when it mattered she's backing out?

This is all BS. This is nothing more than a dirty underhanded trick to delay the appointment of Kavanaugh. I am no longer going to give this woman the benefit of the doubt. She is nothing more than a shill. A fake. Trying to ruin a mans reputation just because of partisan politics.

If I was on the committee for this hearing I would move to dismiss the claims and call for an immediate vote to confirm, or not, Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

I don't know if I'm willing to call her a fake or a shill, but you are right that her own actions are discrediting her claims.

With the waiting, the delay tactics, the demands for that which the FBI already rejected, and a lie detector test in AUGUST, when (she says) she intended to never be known does indeed increasingly look like a ploy to derail the vote. That doesn't mean this was fabricated out of whole cloth, or that nothing happened, but this sure does increasingly look planned

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[cpwill]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

I was unaware that in a courtroom, the accuser was required to be seated right next to the accused while testifying.


She agreed to testify under oath. She did not agree to sit next to him while she did it; in the room, sure. But not seated next to her. Even Anita Hill wasn't treated that shabbily. Anyway, I'm pretty much done here. Have a nice evening, cp.

She did agree. Now she's back tracking, and demanding an FBI investigation, which has already been rejected. I'm not aware of any demands on her part regarding the seating arrangement, but if you can back that claim by showing where she asked not to sit next to him, and was refused, that would be interesting.

Peace to you, Dianna.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

I don't know if I'm willing to call her a fake or a shill, but you are right that her own actions are discrediting her claims.

With the waiting, the delay tactics, the demands for that which the FBI already rejected, and a lie detector test in AUGUST, when (she says) she intended to never be known does indeed increasingly look like a ploy to derail the vote. That doesn't mean this was fabricated out of whole cloth, or that nothing happened, but this sure does increasingly look planned

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

I am. I'm sick of this. I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe that every time some major vote comes along that might not favor Democrats that somehow, some way, women suddenly turn up to claim rape/sexual assault/sexual abuse etc etc etc. and each time the claim is based around something that supposedly happened decades in the past where people KNOW its impossible to find out the truth.

No. I'm done. Without actual proof then there is nothing more to be said as far as I'm concerned. This is NOT supposed to be a nation where people get their lives ruined just based on an accusation. This is SUPPOSED to be a nation where any claims of criminal acts are supposed to be settled with PROOF and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

I'm sick of it. No more.

 

[Bum]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

I suspect it is just a maneuver to burn time; the document was produced as late as possible to prevent a vote on the matter by introducing doubt and delay the proceedings.

After the democrats lost thier chance to put Garland to vote, they will understandably attempt to delay or prevent any vote on Kavanaugh's appointment, especially after Gorsuch was installed...they know Kavanaugh will tilt the ideological lean of the court for a generation at least; and the democrats understand they have no choice but to attempt to stop or slow the nomination until after mid terms at least when they could be in a better defensive position....this may be thier only chance to do so.

Unless there is credible evidence brought forward, I do not think it will alter his eventual appointment, and I expect the hearings will be rather brutal and contentious as the republicans attempt to discredit anything his accuser may offer in testimony, as would be expected

The accusers request for an investigation prior to any testimony is another attempt to delay the vote even further...again, a smart move if an investigation is begun as it would most assuredly prevent a timely vote if the vote is contingent on the outcome of the investigation and her testimony.

I dont know how this will play out, but its like watching a game of chess.

If I were a democrat, I would have done the same thing....its tactically smart as a blocking effort, but if it fails to prevent his appointment, there could be considerable backlash at the ballot box.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

I don't know if I'm willing to call her a fake or a shill, but you are right that her own actions are discrediting her claims.

With the waiting, the delay tactics, the demands for that which the FBI already rejected, and a lie detector test in AUGUST, when (she says) she intended to never be known does indeed increasingly look like a ploy to derail the vote. That doesn't mean this was fabricated out of whole cloth, or that nothing happened, but this sure does increasingly look planned

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

PS: I know you're trying to be reasonable cpwill. I recognize it and applaud it. Normally I try to be also. But like I said...I'm sick of this. Not just the claims of rape etc etc. But I'm sick of the back and forth vitriol that BOTH sides are displaying. Even when one side or the other tries to be reasonable others decide that they need to be unreasonable. I'm sick of it. Enough is enough.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

PS: I know you're trying to be reasonable cpwill. I recognize it and applaud it. Normally I try to be also. But like I said...I'm sick of this. Not just the claims of rape etc etc. But I'm sick of the back and forth vitriol that BOTH sides are displaying. Even when one side or the other tries to be reasonable others decide that they need to be unreasonable. I'm sick of it. Enough is enough.

We hit "enough" a long time ago. This entire confirmation process has been an idiot-circus.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Grokmaster]

Re: Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying: Lawyer

I am. I'm sick of this. I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe that every time some major vote comes along that might not favor Democrats that somehow, some way, women suddenly turn up to claim rape/sexual assault/sexual abuse etc etc etc. and each time the claim is based around something that supposedly happened decades in the past where people KNOW its impossible to find out the truth.

No. I'm done. Without actual proof then there is nothing more to be said as far as I'm concerned. This is NOT supposed to be a nation where people get their lives ruined just based on an accusation. This is SUPPOSED to be a nation where any claims of criminal acts are supposed to be settled with PROOF and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

I'm sick of it. No more.

It is getting OLD, isn't it?