The uncertainty of her appearance before the committee just reinforces the concept of how traumatizing the event was and how she still wants to repress the memories.
Brett Kavanaugh rape allegations
501,749 Views |
5316 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by 93MarineHorn
And let's not forget the public smearing treatment she is getting because of this.
Because she is the first person to get smeared in this process.
Because she is the first person to get smeared in this process.
Right. I mean Kavanaugh clearly deserves any smearing because he had to gall to be a successful lawyer and judge. He should expect to be smeared and just be happy that he isn't lynched on the Capitol steps. But smearing someone that brings forth a ridiculous 40 year old allegation at the very last minute to halt/delay one of our most important political processes would be a travesty.
Republicans can't allow this to set a precedent. They need to Anita Hill this BSC Bimbo !
Because taking an accusation like this seriously is the right thing to do. If it fizzles out, the vote can be expedited. If delays become a pattern, the vote can be expedited.CJS4715 said:
Why are Rs giving into this circus?
The accuser has not agreed to show up at the hearing as of yet, despite her lawyer's caterwauling to the contrary all over cable news yesterday.tehmackdaddy said:Because taking an accusation like this seriously is the right thing to do. If it fizzles out, the vote can be expedited. If delays become a pattern, the vote can be expedited.CJS4715 said:
Why are Rs giving into this circus?
Why is that?
By taking something "seriously" though, I think it should be dealt with "seriously" in more ways than one. You seriously consider if it has validity, but then when you realize it doesn't, you treat it seriously as a dirty political false accusation. There should be consequences for playing the dirty game.
And true or not, Feinstein needs to be called on the carpet for holding it until now. That, for certain, needs to be handled "seriously".
And true or not, Feinstein needs to be called on the carpet for holding it until now. That, for certain, needs to be handled "seriously".
I think the one delay and decision to have this hearing is the right move for the GOP.
Shows they are taking it seriously and also calling Dems on the bluff.
Any more curtailing after this would be a joke. If she doesn't show up and the dems just want to play this out in the media, piss on their leg and have the vote.
Shows they are taking it seriously and also calling Dems on the bluff.
Any more curtailing after this would be a joke. If she doesn't show up and the dems just want to play this out in the media, piss on their leg and have the vote.
How should I know?aggiehawg said:
The accuser has not agreed to show up at the hearing as of yet, despite her lawyer's caterwauling to the contrary all over cable news yesterday.
Why is that?
"Because taking an accusation like this seriously is the right thing to do."
No, taking this seriously only damages women in the long run.
No, taking this seriously only damages women in the long run.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
49,159
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's a rhetorical question. The answer is that this is just a political hit job.tehmackdaddy said:How should I know?aggiehawg said:
The accuser has not agreed to show up at the hearing as of yet, despite her lawyer's caterwauling to the contrary all over cable news yesterday.
Why is that?
I agree that's the most likely scenario, but it has to be handled correctly.blindey said:
It's a rhetorical question. The answer is that this is just a political hit job.
Perhaps the delay in her agreeing to testify is simply because this was not part of the Dems plan for this situation. They possibly were hoping that the Republicans would balk at this accusation and refuse to hear her testimony which would give them all sorts of ammo to attack the right in regards to Kavanaughs nomination and in the midterm elections. Now that the Republicans have agreed to hear what she has to say they are back pedaling in an attempt to formulate a new game plan. A likely avenue is they attempt to delay the hearing past next week in order to let the situation boil up getting the populace on both sides as worked up as possible thereby extinguishing any chance at rationale discourse....not that there was much chance of rationale discourse in the first place.
Let's recap on what we know thus far:PanzerAggie06 said:
Perhaps the delay in her agreeing to testify is simply because this was not part of the Dems plan for this situation. They possibly were hoping that the Republicans would balk at this accusation and refuse to hear her testimony which would give them all sorts of ammo to attack the right in regards to Kavanaughs nomination and in the midterm elections. Now that the Republicans have agreed to hear what she has to say they are back pedaling in an attempt to formulate a new game plan. A likely avenue is they attempt to delay the hearing past next week in order to let the situation boil up getting the populace on both sides as worked up as possible thereby extinguishing any chance at rationale discourse....not that there was much chance of rationale discourse in the first place.
- accuser sends a letter and requests anonymity from Feinstein in July
- WaPo gets a tip but holds the story
- accuser lawyers up
- accuser or her lawyer scrubb her social media accounts
- accuser allegedly takes a polygraph
- accuser's HS similarly scrub their online records (year books) while simultaneously producing out of thin air within two days, letters from 200 former students of the HS in support of accuser
- then accuser's name is outed
- accuser's lawyer goes on a media blitz declaring accuser wants to tell her story
- Grassley says bring it on, see you Monday
- accuser goes into crickets mode
Yep nothing suspicious there at all.
Good Grassley!
This would be right in the Dems playbook. The mean bad Republicans have so frightened this nice poor victim that she cannot testify. Now you have to believe her and pull the nomination.
I have $10 riding on this. Any takers?
I have $10 riding on this. Any takers?
Don't cancel it. Start the proceedings and have the Senators sit there staring at an empty chair while commenting on how unfortunate it is that the Dems don't seem to be taking this situation seriously.
GOP is playing this perfectly.
Excellent list.aggiehawg said:Let's recap on what we know thus far:PanzerAggie06 said:
Perhaps the delay in her agreeing to testify is simply because this was not part of the Dems plan for this situation. They possibly were hoping that the Republicans would balk at this accusation and refuse to hear her testimony which would give them all sorts of ammo to attack the right in regards to Kavanaughs nomination and in the midterm elections. Now that the Republicans have agreed to hear what she has to say they are back pedaling in an attempt to formulate a new game plan. A likely avenue is they attempt to delay the hearing past next week in order to let the situation boil up getting the populace on both sides as worked up as possible thereby extinguishing any chance at rationale discourse....not that there was much chance of rationale discourse in the first place.
- accuser sends a letter and requests anonymity from Feinstein in July
- WaPo gets a tip but holds the story
- accuser lawyers up
- accuser or her lawyer scrubb her social media accounts
- accuser allegedly takes a polygraph
- accuser's HS similarly scrub their online records (year books) while simultaneously producing out of thin air within two days, letters from 200 former students of the HS in support of accuser
- then accuser's name is outed
- accuser's lawyer goes on a media blitz declaring accuser wants to tell her story
- Grassley says bring it on, see you Monday
- accuser goes into crickets mode
Yep nothing suspicious there at all.
Don't forget that she told no one until she told her therapist in 2012, then in a subsequent therapy session a year later her husband says she is concerned he may get nominated for SCOTUS. But you're not worried about his other appointments as judge to other courts?
So this evil man who must be stopped from being on SCOTUS because he is unfit, is totally fit to serve on the DC Circuit Court? Seriously?
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
49,159
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Grassley called the bluff. By saying, "if you want to speak, now is the time," he sniffed out the democrats true intentions in short order.
mathguy86 said:
This would be right in the Dems playbook. The mean bad Republicans have so frightened this nice poor victim that she cannot testify. Now you have to believe her and pull the nomination.
I have $10 riding on this. Any takers?
I bet the talking points will be more along the lines of, "She is a working woman and she DOES NOT have to be at the mercy of her rapists' schedule!"
Whether the Dems believe the charges or not...they can't seriously claim to consider them serious charges, period.
That Bill Clinton is a still a party grandee rather than persona non grata to the Dems is all the proof that is needed.
That Bill Clinton is a still a party grandee rather than persona non grata to the Dems is all the proof that is needed.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
49,159
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
that doesn't work because she already timed when she "came forward" and the democrats already timed when to try to play her as a trump card.rgag12 said:mathguy86 said:
This would be right in the Dems playbook. The mean bad Republicans have so frightened this nice poor victim that she cannot testify. Now you have to believe her and pull the nomination.
I have $10 riding on this. Any takers?
I bet the talking points will be more along the lines of, "She is a working woman and she DOES NOT have to be at the mercy of her rapists' schedule!"
Don't forget about Ellison.Squadron7 said:
Whether the Dems believe the charges or not...they can't seriously claim to consider them serious charges, period.
That Bill Clinton is a still a party grandee rather than persona non grata to the Dems is all the proof that is needed.
AG 2000' said:Don't forget about Ellison.Squadron7 said:
Whether the Dems believe the charges or not...they can't seriously claim to consider them serious charges, period.
That Bill Clinton is a still a party grandee rather than persona non grata to the Dems is all the proof that is needed.
Or the famous Waitress Sandwich invented by Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Dodd (D-CT).
If there's no sperm, you must confirm!
We have due process in this country and a system set up to support victims. It's not perfect but it does try and protect the accuser and the accused. If you can't be bothered to use that system for 36 years why should I be bothered to believe you now?Old Tom Morris said:
By taking something "seriously" though, I think it should be dealt with "seriously" in more ways than one. You seriously consider if it has validity, but then when you realize it doesn't, you treat it seriously as a dirty political false accusation. There should be consequences for playing the dirty game.
And true or not, Feinstein needs to be called on the carpet for holding it until now. That, for certain, needs to be handled "seriously".
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others
That, or tell them they have until the end of today to accept the invitation or the vote will go ahead as planned.PanzerAggie06 said:
Don't cancel it. Start the proceedings and have the Senators sit there staring at an empty chair while commenting on how unfortunate it is that the Dems don't seem to be taking this situation seriously.
What gets me is the notion from the left that this one woman's allegations MUST be taken seriously, but the 60+ women who have come out in support of Judge Kavanaugh should not be considered as reliable.
"you wouldn't want a suspected rapist on the supreme Court would you?"
- Libs
- Libs
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
49,159
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It is being taken seriously. Grassley said, "what you have to say is important. Please come and be heard by the committee so that we can take your testimony in consideration."MOCO9 said:
What gets me is the notion from the left that this one woman's allegations MUST be taken seriously
Her response has been crickets.
aggiehawg said:Let's recap on what we know thus far:PanzerAggie06 said:
Perhaps the delay in her agreeing to testify is simply because this was not part of the Dems plan for this situation. They possibly were hoping that the Republicans would balk at this accusation and refuse to hear her testimony which would give them all sorts of ammo to attack the right in regards to Kavanaughs nomination and in the midterm elections. Now that the Republicans have agreed to hear what she has to say they are back pedaling in an attempt to formulate a new game plan. A likely avenue is they attempt to delay the hearing past next week in order to let the situation boil up getting the populace on both sides as worked up as possible thereby extinguishing any chance at rationale discourse....not that there was much chance of rationale discourse in the first place.
- accuser sends a letter and requests anonymity from Feinstein in July
- WaPo gets a tip but holds the story
- accuser lawyers up
- accuser or her lawyer scrubb her social media accounts
- accuser allegedly takes a polygraph
- accuser's HS similarly scrub their online records (year books) while simultaneously producing out of thin air within two days, letters from 200 former students of the HS in support of accuser
- then accuser's name is outed
- accuser's lawyer goes on a media blitz declaring accuser wants to tell her story
- Grassley says bring it on, see you Monday
- accuser goes into crickets mode
Yep nothing suspicious there at all.
great timeline Hawg
blindey said:It is being taken seriously. Grassley said, "what you have to say is important. Please come and be heard by the committee so that we can take your testimony in consideration."MOCO9 said:
What gets me is the notion from the left that this one woman's allegations MUST be taken seriously
Her response has been crickets.
It is hard to know whose bluff is being called.
Given that there are no answers she can provide that can clear anything up and about a million questions that don't help her....I have to wonder if she/Dem handlers thought Kavanaugh would be pulled before it got to this point.
Chain Saw 82
What were your big "takes" from the Elko interview?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
49