Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since there's been so much psychoanalysis by some posters about Ford's relationship with her parents, let's provide the full quote of a statement that's been dissected to some length on this thread:
"She didn't always get along with her parents because of differing political views," Russell Ford said. "It was a very male-dominated environment. Everyone was interested in what's going on with the men, and the women are sidelined, and she didn't get the attention or respect she felt she deserved."
Why didn’t ford simply file a criminal complaint against Kavanaugh in Montgomery county MD? The statute of limitations doesn’t expire on the crime ford is alleging.
Why doesn’t ford file a criminal report tomorrow? She’ll finally have her day,
Yes, the limitations did expire, one year after the incident. In 1982, the attempted rape was not a felony and had a one year limitation. Montgomery county has already spoken on this.
They say they will still investigate if a complaint is filed, they just cannot charge anyone.
Why didn’t ford simply file a criminal complaint against Kavanaugh in Montgomery county MD? The statute of limitations doesn’t expire on the crime ford is alleging.
Why doesn’t ford file a criminal report tomorrow? She’ll finally have her day,
I think you know the answer.
The vast majority of those attacked such never do......it would be a real rarity if she did so. Almost unheard of.
Now, maybe if 10 other situations are exposed she'll add her name to the list....but in that case it would be more of a "Cosby" where the prosecutors bring the strongest case or two only.
Is this what you want? Or are you just suggesting it for kicks?
It's spelled belligerent and you don't know what the F belligerent is, Kavanaugh was downright docile compared to how most American men would have been if they were being falsely accused of sexual assault while having his family and reputation destroyed.
Yeah, I’ve been asking but so far..........crickets. They’re (usual suspects) super excited about something they haven’t even seen though.
I think the reason we--people at large or the MSM--don't have those texts is that 1--the attorney who tried 3 times to get the FBI to respond to HER efforts has not turned them over to MSM at this point because she is an attorney---a YALE attorney just like Kavanaugh--and maybe she has reasons for not making them public
But she has given them to Senator Blumenthal's office I believe because that is how the FBI was finally--and definitively--provided the texts and information in questions from the attorney who was at the wedding as a guest like Ramirez and Kavanaugh were...
So I am sure that by now Senator Blumenthal and other Democrats and likely GOP Senators on the committee have gotten copies of those texts and her statement...and if there is any reason to believe the FBI is not now making a SERIOUS investigation of the timing of those texts, the people involved in developing the strategy to smear Debbie Ramirez as someone not a viable complainant then I think there are enough Senators who have the info that it can be entered into the record of the Senate's info re Kavanaugh...
If I were anyone who is backing Brett Kavanaugh for SCOTUS I would think twice about asking for those texts to be made public...
Be careful what you wish for...
Because if he did know before the Atlantic story was public--then HOW did he know
If he did attempt to tamper with a witness--that is close to what Manafort did and got slapped by the judge in his criminal case...
Even in a Senate hearing for one party to attempt to influence the testimony of another is very shady practice
You have to understand his conduct Thursday--not to mention the lying in the first part of the hearing--was definitely not appropriate conduct for someone seeking a seat on SCOTUS--
He was off the rails w/his anger--Trump might have liked it but that is not JUDICIAL behavior
The ABA didn't like it I am sure
Not that Kavanaugh cares about the ABA
What he has done if the info re Ramirez's smear campaign is accurate is enough to have him kicked off his Appellate seat...and maybe disbarred....he is an officer of the court---he is NOT supposed to do anything illegal...
even to save his ass or appointment to Supreme Court...
So now we are learning from news reporting that BK was calling old friends asking them to defend him against charges from Ramirez as early as July. He told Hatch at the hearing that he first heard of the Ramirez complaint when he read about it in the New Yorker article. More lies under oath apparently.
Except he didn’t lie, he actually said that in the same line of questioning. He said he had heard from people saying she was calling them.
NBC suggests that Judge Kavanaugh may have lied in his Senate testimony when he said that he had not “discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker” before it was published on September 23. As usual, this allegation seems to be the product of some choice sophistry. On Twitter, @AG_Conservative runs through what NBC has done here.
As AG notes, the accusation from NBC is as follows:
the texts show Kavanaugh may need to be questioned about how far back he anticipated that Ramirez would air allegations against him. Berchem says in her memo that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez.
Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of Ramirez’s allegation was in the Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.
But nothing Kavanaugh has said on the record contradicts that. Indeed, On September 25th, Kavanaugh answered the following question under oath:
[Redacted Questioner]: All right. My last question on this subject is since you graduated from college, but before the New Yorker article publication on September 23rd, have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker?
Judge Kavanaugh: No.
If this were his only answer, it could at a stretch be cast as misleading — although it would be a big stretch, given that he was asked whether he’d heard about an “incident matching the description.” But — surprise! — this wasn’t his only answer. Just one page on in the transcript, Kavanaugh takes a break from protesting his innocence to tell the committee that he had heard that Ramirez was calling around before the specific accusation was made public:
[Redacted Questioner]: Well, actually, are you aware that the New York Times passed up on this story before the New Yorker ran the story? Judge Kavanaugh. That’s what I read in the New York Times. What’s your reaction to that?
Judge Kavanaugh: They couldn’t — the New York Times couldn’t corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that. And you know, that just strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people, is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that? That doesn’t sound — that doesn’t sound good to me. It doesn’t sound fair. It doesn’t sound proper. It sounds like an orchestrated hit to take me out. That’s what it sounds like.
“And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that.”
Is it your understanding that a Nominee for the United States Supreme Court has the Authority to either "call for" OR "order" a FBI Investigation ..... for anything????? A request from Judge Kavanaugh is just about as valid as a request from Senator Durbin ... which means it has no validity at all.
Durbin knows this ...... and you can bet your boots that Judge Kavanaugh knows it also.
For those who remain clueless -- the FBI is a division of the DOJ and BOTH are in the Executive Branch.
This may come as a shock to many, BUT there is this pesky thing in our Constitution.
It's called Division of Power and this is defined as Three Branches of Government.
1). Executive Branch (this includes DOJ and FBI)
2). Judicial Branch ( this includes all the Courts, with the US Supreme Court as the highest Court
3). Legislative Branch (this includes the US House & the US Senate)
Department of Justice does NOT mean Courts of Justice
Senate Justice Committee does NOT mean either Executive Branch OR Courts of Justice
A Senator, ANY Senator does not have the power or Authority to either ASK or TELL the FBI what to do.
They have an Oversight function over other Branches AND they have to Power of the Purse.
I seriously wish that Schools would get back to teaching basic Civics
- the ignorance of the populace is scary.
Calm down. They all know it. They including the Dem Senators are just yanking our chains lol. We all had civics classes. We know it was highly inappropriate for Judge Kavanaugh to call for his own FBI investigation.
They aren't fooling anyone including themselves.
It's spelled belligerent and you don't know what the F belligerent is, Kavanaugh was downright docile compared to how most American men would have been if they were being falsely accused of sexual assault while having his family and reputation destroyed.
Kavanaugh's behavior was fine. He is not the problem here. It is these spectacularly dishonest and corrupt Democrat left Senators that are the problem. These are some of the foulest and nastiest human beings alive.
What comes around, goes around. Whatever ill fate ultimately befalls these completely despicable Democrat Senators, they will have brought it on themselves.
I think the reason we--people at large or the MSM--don't have those texts is that 1--the attorney who tried 3 times to get the FBI to respond to HER efforts has not turned them over to MSM at this point because she is an attorney---a YALE attorney just like Kavanaugh--and maybe she has reasons for not making them public
But she has given them to Senator Blumenthal's office I believe because that is how the FBI was finally--and definitively--provided the texts and information in questions from the attorney who was at the wedding as a guest like Ramirez and Kavanaugh were...
So I am sure that by now Senator Blumenthal and other Democrats and likely GOP Senators on the committee have gotten copies of those texts and her statement...
If I were anyone who is backing Brett Kavanaugh for SCOTUS I would think twice about asking for those texts to be made public...
Be careful what you wish for...
Why not? He's going to get smeared wit the allegation anyway.
NBC suggests that Judge Kavanaugh may have lied in his Senate testimony when he said that he had not “discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker” before it was published on September 23. As usual, this allegation seems to be the product of some choice sophistry. On Twitter, @AG_Conservative runs through what NBC has done here.
As AG notes, the accusation from NBC is as follows:
the texts show Kavanaugh may need to be questioned about how far back he anticipated that Ramirez would air allegations against him. Berchem says in her memo that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez.
Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of Ramirez’s allegation was in the Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.
But nothing Kavanaugh has said on the record contradicts that. Indeed, On September 25th, Kavanaugh answered the following question under oath:
[Redacted Questioner]: All right. My last question on this subject is since you graduated from college, but before the New Yorker article publication on September 23rd, have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker?
Judge Kavanaugh: No.
If this were his only answer, it could at a stretch be cast as misleading — although it would be a big stretch, given that he was asked whether he’d heard about an “incident matching the description.” But — surprise! — this wasn’t his only answer. Just one page on in the transcript, Kavanaugh takes a break from protesting his innocence to tell the committee that he had heard that Ramirez was calling around before the specific accusation was made public:
[Redacted Questioner]: Well, actually, are you aware that the New York Times passed up on this story before the New Yorker ran the story? Judge Kavanaugh. That’s what I read in the New York Times. What’s your reaction to that?
Judge Kavanaugh: They couldn’t — the New York Times couldn’t corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that. And you know, that just strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people, is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that? That doesn’t sound — that doesn’t sound good to me. It doesn’t sound fair. It doesn’t sound proper. It sounds like an orchestrated hit to take me out. That’s what it sounds like.
“And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that.”
Ahh, you just killed their dreams. They were so excited for those text messages too (which we still haven’t seen mind you). Whelp onto the next smear.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
