Mormon Women's Group Call on LDS Senators to Investigate Allegations Against Kavanaugh

[Duncan]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

Who's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch?  Do you have access to a phone?  Could you use it on the sly to summon help?  In some areas, texting emergency dispatchers is an option if you're worried about your captor catching you on the phone.  (I'm not well versed in Canadian law, but under U.S. law in many jurisdictions, that person could well be charged with aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, and perhaps other crimes. )

Hockey Night in Canada is the gun but that's on Saturday, and the nightly news is holding the gun to my head, I'm nosy, I want to know the days events!

[Duncan]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

If he did what he's been accused of, I hope, at a minimum, he would withdraw his nomination from consideration.  If he didn't, I hope he would fight until his last breath.  (A man's reputation is worth quite a bit, whatever else he may or may not have: I ought to know; mine is in tatters. )

why won't he allow the FBI to do a investigation? isn't it in their title?

[Avatar4321]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Ford has four corroborating witnesses.

 

 

Kavanaugh  has lied multiple times under oath. He lies about big and small things. He is not credible.

No she doesnt. Every person she has said was there who could corroborate has made statements under oath to the contrary.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

two words, Merrick Garland.

The difference is of course that the slowdown on Garland was done in a very upfront fashion. They didn't try to destroy his reputation. Indeed most GOP thought Garland was a pretty solid pick for Obama but didn't want to appoint him to replace a key conservative judge that close to the election. More key is that they had the votes to do this and it was within their constitutional purview. While I was critical of how it was handled - I'd have preferred an up/down vote - it seems pretty unlike what's happening now. Particularly Pelosi's hiding information until after the hearing and then leaking it (or at least someone on her staff).

45 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If he did what he's been accused of, I hope, at a minimum, he would withdraw his nomination from consideration.  If he didn't, I hope he would fight until his last breath.  (A man's reputation is worth quite a bit, whatever else he may or may not have: I ought to know; mine is in tatters. )

I think the question is giving his heavy drinking whether he'd know it. The heavy drinking in his youth makes it much, much harder to defend himself. Throw in those pretty misogynist comments in the yearbook and it doesn't look good.

The question also is verification. The fact three women have now come forward is significant even if two of them are pretty different events. That simply changes the calculus a fair bit. Even if all three are false, showing they're unlikely is much, much harder.

16 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

No she doesnt. Every person she has said was there who could corroborate has made statements under oath to the contrary.

We'll find out tomorrow but I can't see her claiming colloboration at this point unless she can produce it. Collaboration isn't just being at the party but her talking to them about it around the time in question.

44 minutes ago, Duncan said:

why won't he allow the FBI to do a investigation? isn't it in their title?

Originally when it was just Ford there was nothing really to investigate. She didn't have a time or place. So other than interviewing her akin to the Anita Hill hearings, there's not much there. I thought they should have done it anyways since it would have given them the rhetorical high ground. The investigation would have been done by now had they asked for it immediately. I think it was a stupid strategy especially now that other accusers have come out.

The initial perception was that this was purely a claim even Pelosi didn't take seriously and that someone on her staff leaked to delay the vote until the election. That is no one thought there was any substance to it and it was pure politics. A lot of people still think that but clearly there's now more smoke to the point I can't see him getting appointed anymore.

Edited September 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Am I supposed to be swayed by this tripe?  Boys spiked the punch with "drugs and/or grain alcohol"?  Which is it? How do you know?  The person states that this was done "so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions". Really? Not boys to lose their inhibitions, but just girls? How did she know what their motivations were? Here is a clue - she does not jack dip about what anyone else was doing unless those individuals told her specifically why they were doing something. 

Oh, come on. Give me something real rather than this type of claptrap stupidity. This type of screed just ticks me off. She says nothing of value, but she smears the reputations of others all the same. 

Yep, I strongly support if a person is caught lying about these types of allegations against others that their punishment is immediately going to jail for no less than 60 years without any option of parole. 

She apparently went to 10 or so of these parties knowing what they did to women there.

And she was in college at the time according to her resume.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

two words, Merrick Garland.

I don't think Merrick Garland is a good argument for destroying a man with obviously fake accusations

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

So calls to 'go slowly' is contrary to a sensible and sustainable process?  Is that what you are saying?

Calls to "go slowly" play into the political maneuvering to delay the confirmation process long enough to get past the mid terms when Democrats hope to gain a majority to carry out their plans to defeat the nomination. It's all political gamesmanship. And transparent at that. And disgusting in that a good man's reputation is being destroyed and his family is being hurt in the process.

 

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

She apparently went to 10 or so of these parties knowing what they did to women there.

What about the guys that went to these parties?  

And, are you saying that you believe she attended them knowing she'd be sexually assaulted?  

I'm trying to keep an open mind here and wait and see what the witnesses state.  But to be honest, the more I'm reading, the more I'm loosing faith in Kavenauh (and I really like him and was in his corner).  I was not at all impressed with him while watching his interview on Fox.   I'm anxious to hear what the witnesses have to say.

Edited September 26, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure what the group's funding has to really do with their request though.  Regardless of their motives, all they've asked for is that the senators move slowly.  That seems like a reasonable thing to do regardless of who asks that it be done.

I see your point, but I also see contrary points of view.  The 11th hour releases of such explosive allegations reek of partisanship.  Calls for delay in what has already been one of the longest confirmation proceedings in recent history also come across as suspect and partisan.

The WaPo makes some salient points about the Swetnick affidavit:

Quote

In her declaration, Swetnick recounts an alleged incident in approximately 1982 in which she says she was the victim of a “gang rape” at which Kavanaugh was present.

She does not say Kavanaugh participated in the alleged rape or what, if any, role he played, nor does she say where the alleged episode took place.

An observation here as well:

Quote

.@MichaelAvenatti was right about one thing.

Nobody would read the affidavit carefully.

Kavanaugh isn't alleged to have done *anything* to the third accuser.

But, she "became aware" of a lot. https://t.co/WosxKGLKSS

— Lee Doren (@LDoren) September 26, 2018

And this:

Quote

So, you’re telling me Kavanaugh is a serial GANG-RAPIST who has somehow managed to pass 6 FBI background checks and has somehow managed to live a spotless life for 30 years & convince every woman in his life he’s a great guy???? Nah https://t.co/XKfIJPvWpg

— Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen) September 26, 2018

And this (same link):

Quote

So…Swetnick repeatedly witnessed Judge and Kavanaugh sexually abuse women at parties, but she kept going to the parties until she herself was raped?

Good luck under questioning with that story, then.

— ConservativeLA (@ConservativeLA) September 26, 2018

And this (same link):

Quote

All three accusations made about Kavanaugh have been made in the 11th hour, have had ZERO witnesses, and allegedly occurred decades ago.

— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) September 26, 2018

It is also significant, I think, that Swetnick is being represented by Michael Avenatti, "the lawyer who represents adult film actress Stormy Daniels, is exploring a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination and spoken out against Trump and his policies, making frequent appearances on cable television."

In sum:

This is an 11th-hour accusation that, if legitimate, could and should have been presented immediately upon the announcement of Kavanaugh's nomination.

The affidavit itself is suspiciously evasive.  Long on explosive accusations, very short on testable/falsifiable statements of fact.  It is chockablock full of ways for the affiant to evade any penalty for false swearing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 26, 2018 by smac97

[Gray]

40 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

No she doesnt. Every person she has said was there who could corroborate has made statements under oath to the contrary.

I mean the four witnesses who corroborate that her claims are good faith, made years before the SCOTUS nomination.

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

A new sworn affidavit from another witness:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-michael-avenatti-reveals-julie-swetnick-today-2018-09-26/

 

 

 

If all of this is true, it's very damning and I cannot imagine anyone would defend this type of behavior.  Even if he was not a participant, but was present when this lady was gang raped, that's horrible.

Now, I'm very interested in hearing what the other witnesses have to say.

Edited September 26, 2018 by ALarson

[Duncan]

31 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I don't think Merrick Garland is a good argument for destroying a man with obviously fake accusations

Is he going to lose his current job over this? I doubt it-What's wrong with the FBI investigating "fake accusations"?  you can't know they are fake unless they are investigated. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

There is a reason that is on the Opinion Page.

Lazy criticism. He posts factual evidence demonstrating that Kavanaugh lied.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

1. No she doesn't have  four corroborating witnesses. She has zero witnesses that say he did it.

There are now two eye witnesses to his abuse of girls. Four witnesses corroborating Ford's credibility and good faith.

 

1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

2. Prove he has lied multiple times under oath.

 

 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/five-times-brett-kavanaugh-appears-to-have-lied-to-congress-while-under-oath/

 

 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

My prediction........Ford never shows up to testify...all political theater by the Dems. 

We already know that Ford's accusations are in good faith. Any accusations that they are in bad faith are made in bad faith.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

why won't he allow the FBI to do a investigation? isn't it in their title?

Sexual assault isn't a federal crime.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

but that's just it, the written record is coming forward. If this guy is going to judge women's issues I would hope he has a great record when it comes to women. Not everyone was a sleezy guy in High School and I hope people learn from their mistakes but part of doing that is confessing them to a committee and not denying them.

So, you are saying he obviously is a sleazy guy because "she" said so.  Got it.  All is that is needed is an allegation from a woman and guilty as charged. Yup, sounds like common sense to me. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

So, you are saying he obviously is a sleazy guy because "she" said so.  Got it.  All is that is needed is an allegation from a woman and guilty as charged. Yup, sounds like common sense to me. 

Problem is, there are more women coming forward with accusations.  It's not just one "she"" now and it's not just "a woman", but "women".
"

Edited September 26, 2018 by ALarson

[Kenngo1969]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Is he going to lose his current job over this? I doubt it-What's wrong with the FBI investigating "fake accusations"?  you can't know they are fake unless they are investigated. 

None of the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh involve federal crimes.  You've made much of the name of the FBI, singling out the word, "Investigation."  The word Federal is also in there.  If credible allegations of bank robbery were made against Judge Kavanaugh (putting aside any statute of limitations and other such issues which might bar a prosecution), I think the FBI would be very much interested, since bank robbery is a federal crime.  Sexual assault is a heinous crime, but it's also not within the jurisdiction of the FBI.

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Sexual assault isn't a federal crime.

does the US penalize it in some way? It seem the republicans treat their own President and sexual assault with a who cares attitude

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Problem is, there are more women coming forward with accusations.  It's not just one "she"" now and it's not just "a woman", but "women".
"

And from what I've seen, all of these accusations have pretty much the same basis in fact.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Can we at least try not to make this political?   Let's focus on the last quote from the WFEG-

“Stop pushing forward despite the clear objections of....millions of other women across the country,” the group wrote Tuesday. “Women comprise half of your constituents. If you truly respect women, then demonstrate it by honoring our requests to go slowly here. The appalling audacity of some of your colleagues in declaring their intention to simply take this seat with or without the broad support of women everywhere is just as troubling as the allegations against Kavanaugh. In fact, the irony is chilling.”

Do LDS politicians (given their professed spiritual beliefs) have a responsibility to care about what LDS members want?  Do LDS senators (given their professed spiritual beliefs) have a responsibility to care about what women want?   

I think American politicians have a responsibility to care about their constituency’s wants and to know them well enough to balance the various interests of their makeup. That sense of responsibility is informed and balanced in part by their individual moral or spiritual compass. But I don’t take anything in the quote as an appeal to the Senators’ religious affiliation or contract with their faith community.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

So, you are saying he obviously is a sleazy guy because "she" said so.  Got it.  All is that is needed is an allegation from a woman and guilty as charged. Yup, sounds like common sense to me. 

but their are records coming forward though, and why should we just believe him? because he says he didn't do it? okay, is that the new standard of proof now? it would make trials go so much quicker!, "are you guilty?", "no", allright, case closed!

[Kenngo1969]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

does the US penalize it in some way? It seem the republicans treat their own President and sexual assault with a who cares attitude

The United States (i.e., the federal government) neither criminalizes nor penalizes sexual assault (except, perhaps, on federal property, but that's another subject for another day and is not relevant here, since none of the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh involve crimes that were committed on federal property).  State-level crimes are prosecuted and punished by the States, not by the federal government. 

Edited September 26, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Gray]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

What evidence are you talking about? There is no evidence this encounter took place!.....Misleading the senate.....Meh.....none of the supreme court nominees ever answer any questions on policy. 

 

What's a little lite perjury for a SCOTUS justice, am I right? We have two eye witnesses now  that say they saw or experienced abused at the hands of Kavanaugh. That's evidence.

Kavanaugh lied, repeatedly, under oath. He was a party to receiving, disseminating stolen documents, and lied to cover up this fact. He can't explain who paid $200k in debt prior to his nomination. We have cryptic documents that seem to indicate he was participating in sex &/or gambling parties as a married man. He doesn't have the moral character or integrity to serve on SCOTUS. He is too tainted. He wouldn't get hired for a low-level office position under these circumstances.