quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Warning: graphic language

because of Christine Ford, the Kavanaugh family is getting emails like this

"Please tell your rapist, lying, cheating, corrupt b---h of a husband to put a bullet in his ugly f-----g skull," one email to Kavanaugh’s wife read. "My condolences to you for being married to a rapist. Although you probably deserve it."

Another email, with the subject line, "Did your know your husband is a rapist?????" stated: "Hey b---h, did you know your husband was a rapist before you married him? F--k you and your f-----g family."

A third email, typed entirely in capital letters, read, "F--K YOU AND YOUR RAPIST HUSBAND."

F--K YOU, RAPE ENABLING C--T. YOUR HUSBAND IS A LIAR, THIEF, RAPIST AND PROBABLY A PEDOPHILE. BURN IN HELL YOU WORTHLESS F-----G C--T," the email stated. "MAY YOU, YOUR HUSBAND AND YOUR KIDS BURN IN HELL YOU F-----G PIECES OF TRASH. EAAAAATTTTT S-----------T!!!!!!!!!!"


http://www.foxnews.com/politic...raphic-language.html


Kavanaugh, the nominee, is himself receiving death threats

This is by design. The nation I love is heading off of the rails. There are so many politically charged idiots out there (as this thread has shown) that things will surely get dangerous.

So, let's look at the allegation. Based upon the 36 year old allegation, if Kavanaugh did commit the crime he is guilty of the appropriate charge of misdemeanor unwanted sexual contact (term here is misdemeanor sexual abuse). That is the appropriate charge IF HE DID IT AS SHE SAID. But, so many ishootsometimes' believe whatever is politically expedient. They don't really care about facts, they don't really care about innocence, and they refuse to see this for what it is.

Why not just go ahead and accuse Kavanaugh of murder, and being a pedophile? There is no allegation that he did either of those things either, but the useful idiots seem to have no problem calling it rape. The outrage machine is in full spin.

It is equally as fascinating that they have to rely on emotionally charged arguments in lieu of facts. "DO you have a daughter" is the same type of "What if it was your child killed by an assault weapon" that the gun grabbers use. They can't back their statements up with facts, so they have to throw in emotion, and then when emotion doesn't work, gin up the outrage machine.

quote:

Originally posted by grumpy1:


I think a danger here is that the delaying is really because the evil democrats are looking for more bogus liars to back up the accusers story. If she testifies and says that she now remembers a couple friends from back then that will confirm her story, that have been setup conveniently for her by democrat fixers, that will cause total chaos at the hearings and probably blow up the confirmation.

Just like Kenny Stabler, the Snake of the Raiders. Just don’t let the clock run out. Something good can happen.

I suspect this story was cut from whole cloth anyway, so now what they need is some plausible Part II, either other women who suddenly recover suppressed memories of this “episode,” or new one to send the MSM reporters out scurrying around for details, or maybe a fellow Kozinski clerk who can regale us with how Judge K and clerk K used to sit around guffawing over porno flicks while comparing the actresses to females on staff.

^^^ Where's the proof of that?

^^^ Is that true?
Is that what was 'scrubbed' from her Facebook page? If so, this is over. She's not going to show up and testify and have to answer for that. But we will need proof that she actually posted that.

Even if true Facebook would never give up that or any other such damaging information about here. Even if compelled to by lawsuits or such they could drag that out for at least months.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
^^^ Is that true?
Is that what was 'scrubbed' from her Facebook page? If so, this is over. She's not going to show up and testify and have to answer for that. But we will need proof that she actually posted that.

Hey turnabout is fair play.

I’m at the point where I really don’t care if she said/posted it or not. If someone “believes” she did, then we have to be sensitive and supporting of that belief and repeatedly point out she may have posted it because we can’t call the person saying she did a liar. To do so would be to harm them again and force them to relive the experience.

She should call for a full blown FBI investigation on whether she posted it, because that is what an innocent person would do and welcome. To not want the FBI digging in suggests guilt after all.

She needs to testify before a senate panel to answer questions about what she did or didn’t post, and she needs to go first before anyone who says she posted shit to tell their side of the story.

5 PM deadline.

Ok, 10 PM deadline.

Well, make that a 2:30 PM Saturday deadline.

When, 2:30 rolls around still without a response, Grassley should set the hearing for Monday morning. Whoever shows up shows up and whoever doesn’t, tough. You had your chance.

As for the Kavanaugh family, I feel for them being blindsided like this and having to experience such vitriol. My prayers for them and for actual victims of sexual assault.

quote:

^^^ Where's the proof of that?

Yeah, that's extremely damning....and likely too good to be true. But there's hope...

I am with 911Boss

We must assume what TMats posted is true until Ms Ford proves otherwise.

She needs to testify under oath that she did not post it.
Then we can vote on whether or not she did, but regardless I believe she did post it and I am voting her guilty.

Chairman Grassley and Leader McConnell need to put out a statement that the vote is Monday. We are dismayed Ford's story was not heard in a timely manner too, please direct questions to the Democratic party which ignored her letter during the confirmation process.

Why did the Democrats not care enough to explore Mrs. Ford's allegations during the months long vetting/hearings? The democrats sabotaged Mrs. Ford!

Just about 45 minutes from now is the moment of truth. If she does not respond-- and she probably will not-- Grassley needs to schedule the vote for early Monday morning.

On Sunday, or even Monday, she will put forward a breathless, maybe even tearful, demand to testify later in the week-- Thursday or Friday.

And there we go....

So Grassley needs to be absolute and unwavering about this upcoming deadline.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
If she does not respond-- and she probably will not-- Grassley needs to schedule the vote for early Monday morning.

Oh I think it's likely she'll respond--or more to the point her lawyer will respond--but it'll be to once again ask for another day to "think about it."

quote:

Originally posted by Ishootsometimes:
You are ok with a person that sexually assaults females on the Supreme Court. I am not ok with that.

I'm not ok with it. However, when I worked person on person crimes, including many sexual assault and rape cases, there were plenty of false allegations. Not just lack of proof to support a charge, but proof that the accuser lied. So, it takes more than just an allegation to believe that someone is guilty. Sometimes the accuser lies, for a wide variety of reasons.

The problem, as I've said before on this thread, is there do not appear to be any viable leads to prove, or disprove the allegation.

If you were being objective about this, rather than emotional, you would understand that.

For the record, I have a wife, daughters, mom, sisters, and plenty of close female friends.

The thing I really hate is that an accusation equals guilt today. Because she said he assaulted her decades ago then he assaulted her years ago.
As an employer I always tread lightly around and worry about my female employees. If one or two decided to, they could proclaim that I sexually harass them and I get to defend myself with a good chance of losing.

Drudge is flashing that she will testify

wouldn't be surprised if they try to pull another delay next week

We are dealing w the sleaziest of trash

quote:

Originally posted by mark60:
The thing I really hate is that an accusation equals guilt today. Because she said he assaulted her decades ago then he assaulted her years ago.
As an employer I always tread lightly around and worry about my female employees. If one or two decided to, they could proclaim that I sexually harass them and I get to defend myself with a good chance of losing.

Almost certain chance of losing. There is almost no chance of defending accusations once made.

I’m not a young man anymore, but if I woke up tomorrow age 23, I think I might have to seriously evaluate relationships with females. Not serious romantic ones necessarily, but the casual, work place especially and social ones.

It appears to me as though any time a female is unhappy with you, she can make life seriously miserable if she is of a mind to do so.

I had quite a few female employees over the years. I might not want to do that these days. The inconveniences of no female employees would not be likely be greater than the risk of an accusation, and let’s be clear that no improper conduct would occur.

I always liked women. Some of my best friends happen to be women. Many are clean, moral people, but I wouldn’t want my sister to marry one.

The provocative picture of the young lady is from the Hilton Arms year book that was scrubbed from the Hilton Arms website. I linked this maybe 2 or 3 pages ago. I’d have to go back and read the blog that captured these pics and other text with them but I don’t believe that is Ford in that pic. But it is indicative of the party and promiscuous atmosphere at that school during the years Ford attended. The year books lay bare the kind of atmosphere that was predominant there.

The same is true of most other prep schools of privledged kids no doubt. Or all schools for that matter. But to have the vast majority of your year book to be dedicated to the party scene and that would post pictures like that one is not the norm to be certain.

CNBC is reporting Ford has agreed to testify, details still to be worked out.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
CNBC is reporting Ford has agreed to testify, details still to be worked out.

She agreed to testify days ago IF her conditions were met. Doesn't seem like anything has changed.