• 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!

A memory refresher for Democrats

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,899
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Judging from the posts her about the SC hearings, and how horribly the Republican Senators are acting, a thing a little memory refresher is needed.

"Because, as I recall, Senator Dianne Feinstein sat on Blasey Ford’s letter accusing Kavanaugh of rape for six weeks before using it as a last-ditch smear against the nominee. Initially, Democrats didn’t even want Blasey Ford to testify under oath. They simply demanded that Kavanaugh step aside. They continued to do so even after the FBI investigated the accusations.
Credibility is subjective. The question is: Would any decent reporter move ahead with a story of an uncorroborated allegation dating back to 1982, in which the accuser could not recall either the place where the attack supposedly happened or the time, or provide any contemporaneous witnesses that could prove she had ever even met the attacker — who, it should be noted, had never been accused of anything untoward in the subsequent 35 years? It’s highly doubtful. Even her close high-school friend, who Ford said was at the party where the alleged assault took place, was skeptical of the accusation. Perhaps none of this is dispositive, but it certainly didn’t rise to “credible.”

Even before any of that happened, Kavanaugh was being hammered with hyperbolic accusations that he was a corrupt dupe who was threatening “the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.” The future vice president argued that “his nomination presents an existential threat to the health care of hundreds of millions of Americans.” Senators wanted to know about every beer Kavanaugh consumed, every sexual interaction he might have engaged in, in high school, every grounding his parents gave him, every inside joke in his yearbook, to paint him as a deviant. This was all before Harris entered unsubstantiated gang-rape allegations into the congressional record. The Kavanaugh hearing degenerated into a lurid circus that makes the Jackson hearing look like the Algonquin Round Table."

He's correct. The allegations were not credible.
(IF when Merrick Garland was nominated some right wing flake made the exact same allegations against him , no left winger would be calling them 'credible")
Many Dem Senators, including the current VP acted despicably.
 
Judging from the posts her about the SC hearings, and how horribly the Republican Senators are acting, a thing a little memory refresher is needed.

"Because, as I recall, Senator Dianne Feinstein sat on Blasey Ford’s letter accusing Kavanaugh of rape for six weeks before using it as a last-ditch smear against the nominee. Initially, Democrats didn’t even want Blasey Ford to testify under oath. They simply demanded that Kavanaugh step aside.
Ma

Judging from the posts her about the SC hearings, and how horribly the Republican Senators are acting, a thing a little memory refresher is needed.

"Because, as I recall, Senator Dianne Feinstein sat on Blasey Ford’s letter accusing Kavanaugh of rape for six weeks before using it as a last-ditch smear against the nominee. Initially, Democrats didn’t even want Blasey Ford to testify under oath. They simply demanded that Kavanaugh step aside. They continued to do so even after the FBI investigated the accusations.
Credibility is subjective. The question is: Would any decent reporter move ahead with a story of an uncorroborated allegation dating back to 1982, in which the accuser could not recall either the place where the attack supposedly happened or the time, or provide any contemporaneous witnesses that could prove she had ever even met the attacker — who, it should be noted, had never been accused of anything untoward in the subsequent 35 years? It’s highly doubtful. Even her close high-school friend, who Ford said was at the party where the alleged assault took place, was skeptical of the accusation. Perhaps none of this is dispositive, but it certainly didn’t rise to “credible.”

Even before any of that happened, Kavanaugh was being hammered with hyperbolic accusations that he was a corrupt dupe who was threatening “the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.” The future vice president argued that “his nomination presents an existential threat to the health care of hundreds of millions of Americans.” Senators wanted to know about every beer Kavanaugh consumed, every sexual interaction he might have engaged in, in high school, every grounding his parents gave him, every inside joke in his yearbook, to paint him as a deviant. This was all before Harris entered unsubstantiated gang-rape allegations into the congressional record. The Kavanaugh hearing degenerated into a lurid circus that makes the Jackson hearing look like the Algonquin Round Table."

He's correct. The allegations were not credible.
(IF when Merrick Garland was nominated some right wing flake made the exact same allegations against him , no left winger would be calling them 'credible")
Many Dem Senators, including the current VP acted despicably.
Hear! Hear!

Even some Dems were embarrassed by that lady who had obvious mental challenges.
 
lie detector tests don't count.
Is she was telling the truth at least one of the four witnesses would have corroborated at least some of her storty.
They didn't








Mark S. Zaid

@MarkSZaidEsq

Kudos to her in coming forward but I wish she, and the media, would stop touting #polygraph in a way that signifies that means anything. It doesn't. Does anyone really believe that had she "failed" (and that signifies nothing too), we would have known?

The problem is, the U.S. Supreme Court has had something to say about the validity of polygraphs in the past. As Law&Crime’s Aaron Keller noted before in a different context, so-called “lie detector test results are largely considered inadmissible in court because the tests are not reliable. People can cheat them and, sometimes, the tests pick up false readings.”

Keller pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Scheffer (1998):

[T]here is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable. To this day, the scientific community remains extremely polarized about the reliability of polygraph techniques.



 
:rolleyes:

Credibly accused RAPIST and republican coward kegs kavanugh didn't want to get anywhere near a polygraph test.

kegs kavavugh ---> Your typical shady republican p-ussy...
 
:rolleyes:

Credibly accused RAPIST and republican coward kegs kavanugh didn't want to get anywhere near a polygraph test.

kegs kavavugh ---> Your typical shady republican p-ussy...
Thanks for proving my point.
 
Judging from the posts her about the SC hearings, and how horribly the Republican Senators are acting, a thing a little memory refresher is needed.

"Because, as I recall, Senator Dianne Feinstein sat on Blasey Ford’s letter accusing Kavanaugh of rape for six weeks before using it as a last-ditch smear against the nominee. Initially, Democrats didn’t even want Blasey Ford to testify under oath. They simply demanded that Kavanaugh step aside. They continued to do so even after the FBI investigated the accusations.
Credibility is subjective. The question is: Would any decent reporter move ahead with a story of an uncorroborated allegation dating back to 1982, in which the accuser could not recall either the place where the attack supposedly happened or the time, or provide any contemporaneous witnesses that could prove she had ever even met the attacker — who, it should be noted, had never been accused of anything untoward in the subsequent 35 years? It’s highly doubtful. Even her close high-school friend, who Ford said was at the party where the alleged assault took place, was skeptical of the accusation. Perhaps none of this is dispositive, but it certainly didn’t rise to “credible.”

Even before any of that happened, Kavanaugh was being hammered with hyperbolic accusations that he was a corrupt dupe who was threatening “the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.” The future vice president argued that “his nomination presents an existential threat to the health care of hundreds of millions of Americans.” Senators wanted to know about every beer Kavanaugh consumed, every sexual interaction he might have engaged in, in high school, every grounding his parents gave him, every inside joke in his yearbook, to paint him as a deviant. This was all before Harris entered unsubstantiated gang-rape allegations into the congressional record. The Kavanaugh hearing degenerated into a lurid circus that makes the Jackson hearing look like the Algonquin Round Table."

He's correct. The allegations were not credible.
(IF when Merrick Garland was nominated some right wing flake made the exact same allegations against him , no left winger would be calling them 'credible")
Many Dem Senators, including the current VP acted despicably.
Stop calling it an investigation.

"As Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh prepares for his second year on the Supreme Court, new reporting has detailed how the limits ordered by the White House and Senate Republicans last year constrained the FBI investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct when he was a college freshman. The FBI was informed of allegations that Kavanaugh, while drunk during his freshman year at Yale, exposed himself to two heavily intoxicated female classmates on separate occasions. The bureau did not interview more than a dozen people who said they could provide information about the incidents. One of the accounts, reported by Deborah Ramirez, was made public at the time of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. The other, not publicly known until this weekend, was reported by a male classmate who said he witnessed the incident. He unsuccessfully sought to get the FBI to investigate with help from a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who asked FBI Director Christopher A. Wray to look into the allegation."
 
Stop calling it an investigation.

"As Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh prepares for his second year on the Supreme Court, new reporting has detailed how the limits ordered by the White House and Senate Republicans last year constrained the FBI investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct when he was a college freshman. The FBI was informed of allegations that Kavanaugh, while drunk during his freshman year at Yale, exposed himself to two heavily intoxicated female classmates on separate occasions. The bureau did not interview more than a dozen people who said they could provide information about the incidents. One of the accounts, reported by Deborah Ramirez, was made public at the time of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. The other, not publicly known until this weekend, was reported by a male classmate who said he witnessed the incident. He unsuccessfully sought to get the FBI to investigate with help from a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who asked FBI Director Christopher A. Wray to look into the allegation."
more BS.
New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly claim that they have seven sources who "more fully [corroborate]" Deborah Ramirez's allegation that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party.

Yet of those seven, only one even claims to have heard that Kavanaugh was the person in the story at the time, as they admit in their book, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation. And even he is only a third-hand source of information, not having actually been there himself, and having heard it from a source whose identity he does not disclose.
Ramirez names David White, Kevin Genda, and David Todd all as witnessing the alleged incident, yet in their statement to the New Yorker, all three said, "We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it — and we did not." No one other than Ramirez claims to have witnessed the alleged incident, and the book reports that she did not recall telling anyone about it at the time."

But I know you believe it because facts don't matter when you can take down a rw justice, ehc?
 
This is a pointless thread, memory isn’t the issue principles are.
 
Last edited:
more BS.
New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly claim that they have seven sources who "more fully [corroborate]" Deborah Ramirez's allegation that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party.

Yet of those seven, only one even claims to have heard that Kavanaugh was the person in the story at the time, as they admit in their book, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation. And even he is only a third-hand source of information, not having actually been there himself, and having heard it from a source whose identity he does not disclose.
Ramirez names David White, Kevin Genda, and David Todd all as witnessing the alleged incident, yet in their statement to the New Yorker, all three said, "We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it — and we did not." No one other than Ramirez claims to have witnessed the alleged incident, and the book reports that she did not recall telling anyone about it at the time."

But I know you believe it because facts don't matter when you can take down a rw justice, ehc?
The Washington Examiner? Why don't you just skip to the djt explanation?

The claim of no support for Ramirez is rejected. I posted this in my previous comment, apparently you only read the things that agree with your POV.
"One of the accounts, reported by Deborah Ramirez, was made public at the time of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. The other, not publicly known until this weekend, was reported by a male classmate who said he witnessed the incident. He unsuccessfully sought to get the FBI to investigate with help from a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who asked FBI Director Christopher A. Wray to look into the allegation."
 
ridiculous but what do you expect from the right. The morons republicans are pandering to their Taliban base with stupid accusation of light on pedophiles, they are asking moronic questions having nothing to do with the law. Also asking stupid trans questions, all useless Taliban shit that has nothing to do with laws that will help this country and court ruling. And by the way, she answered questions professionally, and didn't fake cry and talk about liking beer, she is worlds above Kavanaugh and Barrett

democrats ask questions about laws that have real life issues, or that address character issues, like Kavanaugh rape allegations. His response shows they were likely probably true. or how a religious nut job should have no business being on the SCOTUS putting her insane views into reading American laws, where religion should play absolutely no part. not stupid shit to pander to bigots like pushing pedophile conspiracy theories (projection, republicans have the pedophiles and rapists), or asking about stupid trans nonsense, or using their time to make moronic politics statement to pander to the GOP Taliban

And just like all the shams when republicans have power, the FBI didn't even fully vet. They crammed him in as quickly as possible without the full on vetting. and women who are raped by creepy men do tend to have issues dealing with it
 
Let it go, this shit is why people hate politics. Dig into hyper partisan nonsense
 

so what? We all know they use them. But not as evidence. And what they also do is corroborate any statements that a witness makes. We all know how that worked out.
IS Sen Klobuchar saying they should have relied on a polygraph even though none of what she she said could be backed up?
 
Stop calling it an investigation.

"As Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh prepares for his second year on the Supreme Court, new reporting has detailed how the limits ordered by the White House and Senate Republicans last year constrained the FBI investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct when he was a college freshman. The FBI was informed of allegations that Kavanaugh, while drunk during his freshman year at Yale, exposed himself to two heavily intoxicated female classmates on separate occasions. The bureau did not interview more than a dozen people who said they could provide information about the incidents. One of the accounts, reported by Deborah Ramirez, was made public at the time of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. The other, not publicly known until this weekend, was reported by a male classmate who said he witnessed the incident. He unsuccessfully sought to get the FBI to investigate with help from a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who asked FBI Director Christopher A. Wray to look into the allegation."
We always knew the follow-up FBI investigation was a sham. Grassley made sure they had neither the time or purview to follow all the leads.
 
ridiculous but what do you expect from the right. The morons republicans are pandering to their Taliban base with stupid accusation of light on pedophiles, they are asking moronic questions having nothing to do with the law. Also asking stupid trans questions, all useless Taliban shit that has nothing to do with laws that will help this country and court ruling. And by the way, she answered questions professionally, and didn't fake cry and talk about liking beer, she is worlds above Kavanaugh and Barrett

democrats ask questions about laws that have real life issues, or that address character issues, like Kavanaugh rape allegations. His response shows they were likely probably true. or how a religious nut job should have no business being on the SCOTUS putting her insane views into reading American laws, where religion should play absolutely no part. not stupid shit to pander to bigots like pushing pedophile conspiracy theories (projection, republicans have the pedophiles and rapists), or asking about stupid trans nonsense, or using their time to make moronic politics statement to pander to the GOP Taliban

And just like all the shams when republicans have power, the FBI didn't even fully vet. They crammed him in as quickly as possible without the full on vetting. and women who are raped by creepy men do tend to have issues dealing with it
Thanks for proving my point!
I knew you wouldn't disappoint.
 
We always knew the follow-up FBI investigation was a sham. Grassley made sure they had neither the time or purview to follow all the leads.
suuuuure it was.They should have just kept going until they got the answer YOU wanted. OF course they'd still be at it because ->#NUTTIN> NYUK NYUK NYUH

And they really fumbled the ball. You know many women he's raped while drunk because the FBI fumbled the ball and din't lock his ass up!!
GUFFAW!!!
 
We always knew the follow-up FBI investigation was a sham. Grassley made sure they had neither the time or purview to follow all the leads.
It wasn't Grassley (he was just a useful idiot), it was the White House.
 
750-dc-kavanaughkaveman_750_468_99_c1.jpeg


Supposedly he gets drunk all the time and grabs chicks by the pu$$y at the Supreme Court!
LAFFRIOT!!
 
Back
Top Bottom