PLXTO
Toronto Escorts

NYT Reporters Say They Uncovered New Sexual Misconduct Claim Against Kavanaugh

Gooseifur

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2019
3,764
405
83
What people fail to realize is that stories like this can destroy somebodies life. Saying "Sorry, we got it wrong" is not enough, they need to be sued for large amounts of money that will deter them from reporting stories before they get all the facts correct. No accountability accept to say "We are Sorry".
 

Gooseifur

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2019
3,764
405
83
The person did not say that the incident occurred she simply said she did not recall. That does not mean that it did not occur. The witnesses recollection was clear.
Except the witnesses didn't see the incident, they "heard about it". They are not really witnesses.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,560
113
Those witnesses wanted to testify to the FBI. So they clearly had the information that would have put a road block to Kavanaugh's appointment. As usual the Republicans limited the scope of the FBI. This definitely needs to be investigated further. Otherwise, why was Blasey Ford willing to testify before the House and then not be interviewed further by the FBI. This was clearly an obstruction by the Whitehouse and their Banana Republican pets.
 

Gooseifur

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2019
3,764
405
83
Those witnesses wanted to testify to the FBI. So they clearly had the information that would have put a road block to Kavanaugh's appointment. As usual the Republicans limited the scope of the FBI. This definitely needs to be investigated further. Otherwise, why was Blasey Ford willing to testify before the House and then not be interviewed further by the FBI. This was clearly an obstruction by the Whitehouse and their Banana Republican pets.
The information they had was that they heard about it. That's hearsay, I wouldn't call them witnesses. It's not right to impeach someone based on rumors or "witnesses" who say. "Yes, I heard about it from other people but I wasn't there or didn't see anything". If the victim had said it happened to her and someone else saw it then yes they have a case.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,560
113
The information they had was that they heard about it. That's hearsay, I wouldn't call them witnesses. It's not right to impeach someone based on rumors or "witnesses" who say. "Yes, I heard about it from other people but I wasn't there or didn't see anything". If the victim had said it happened to her and someone else saw it then yes they have a case.
But to go before the FBI and testify some false information is a crime. Why would they do so if they place their own lives in peril for it? The FBI should have interviewed them. This indicates that their scope was very limited as the Whitehouse and The Republicans just wanted it to be shut down in order to rush through Kavanaugh's appointment.
 

Gooseifur

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2019
3,764
405
83
But to go before the FBI and testify some false information is a crime. Why would they do so if they place their own lives in peril for it? The FBI should have interviewed them. This indicates that their scope was very limited as the Whitehouse and The Republicans just wanted it to be shut down in order to rush through Kavanaugh's appointment.
They are not giving false information. They simply said that they heard from someone else that it happened but didn't see it themselves. That's not evidence, it's hearsay. How would you feel if you were accused of doing something but nobody actually saw it? If it were me I would be pretty pissed off. Whether you agree with his views or not, which I don't, I would need more evidence to ruin someone else's life.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,560
113
They are not giving false information. They simply said that they heard from someone else that it happened but didn't see it themselves. That's not evidence, it's hearsay. How would you feel if you were accused of doing something but nobody actually saw it? If it were me I would be pretty pissed off. Whether you agree with his views or not, which I don't, I would need more evidence to ruin someone else's life.
A lot of it is just speculation as to what they know and whether it is first hand or not. That is why they should have been interviewed by the FBI as part of an investigation. You have to cross your t's and dot your i's in such a serious allegation. Again are you saying that Blasey Ford was lying when she testified?
 

Gooseifur

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2019
3,764
405
83
A lot of it is just speculation as to what they know and whether it is first hand or not. That is why they should have been interviewed by the FBI as part of an investigation. You have to cross your t's and dot your i's in such a serious allegation. Again are you saying that Blasey Ford was lying when she testified?
There are no reports saying any of the information is first hand, the reporting suggests it's not.I didn't believe Blasey Ford. She was very detailed about the actual assault but couldn't remember anything else. Her story had as many holes as a piece of Swiss cheese. No one could back up her story including her best friend that was there according to Blasey Ford, She didn't even get that right. Like I said I need hardcore proof to ruin someone's life. If only one other person would have backed her story I would have believed her but there wasn't.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,760
17,579
113
There are no reports saying any of the information is first hand, the reporting suggests it's not.I didn't believe Blasey Ford. She was very detailed about the actual assault but couldn't remember anything else. Her story had as many holes as a piece of Swiss cheese. No one could back up her story including her best friend that was there according to Blasey Ford, She didn't even get that right. Like I said I need hardcore proof to ruin someone's life. If only one other person would have backed her story I would have believed her but there wasn't.
This is for a SC, a job for life with major ramifications on the legal standing of the country.
If there's any doubt, he shouldn't be in there, K should be super, squeaky clean.

And he's not.
 

Gooseifur

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2019
3,764
405
83
This is for a SC, a job for life with major ramifications on the legal standing of the country.
If there's any doubt, he shouldn't be in there, K should be super, squeaky clean.

And he's not.
The doubt is fishy at best, no one could corroborate her story. Going forward if every SC nominee has a claim against them with no proof should they automatically be DQ'd? This can easily be done for political reasons, to have someone come forward with false allegations just to torpedo a nominee, it's a dangerous precedent. Let's say Garland was nominated and a woman came forward and accused him of sexual assault only based on her word, should he be DQ'd? No he shouldn't. This is the same situation. We live in an era now of false accusations for political purposes. There must be proof along with the accusation.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,906
1,172
113
This is for a SC, a job for life with major ramifications on the legal standing of the country.
If there's any doubt, he shouldn't be in there, K should be super, squeaky clean.

And he's not.
I don't agree. You are essentially saying that anyone can lob accusations to stop a court appointment. Then you are denying the plausibility that political operatives would try to smear a justice.

Your "super, squeaky clean" argument is just word play. In any event, our Constitution doesn't state any requirement of "super, squeaky clean" or anything of this sort of perfection.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts