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

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, alter idem said:

Do you realize the precedent which is set when unsubstantiated allegations (these three accusers are all bringing forward allegations with no evidence to support their claims) are allowed to destroy a person's character, their reputations and opportunities?  Is this the world you want to live in?  What if someone makes an accusation against you and there is no evidence to support it, should the community believe the accuser because they've made an accusation--regardless of no evidence?  This is not how it used to be done in America, but I'm afraid that is the way we are headed.  We are headed down a dangerous road.

Its a new world we live in.  When a Democrat president nominates a liberal judge in the future, we will see some allegations come out against them.  Perhaps in most cases these claims are legitimate but some of them are not.  There are some certain former Duke students that can tell you about that.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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.

correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the FBI do this normally for USSC judges? why are they being prevented from doing their job? what is the republican party hiding that the FBI can't get involved? 

[carbon dioxide]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the FBI do this normally for USSC judges? why are they being prevented from doing their job? what is the republican party hiding that the FBI can't get involved? 

What exactly will the FBI do on 35 year old allegations?  There is no evidence to process.  One is remembering memories of people back in 1982.  How long ago was that?  Let see some of the top songs of that year where from a search

Physical - Olivia Newton-John
Eye of the Tiger - Survivor
I Love Rock 'N Roll - Joan Jett and The Blackhearts
Ebony & Ivory - Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder

That is a long time ago.    Perhaps a couple of people can be interviewed and that would take a day or two but at the end of the day, they would not have enough evidence to bring charges even if the statute of limitations was not an issue.  I remember the 80s.  Good times but my memories is still vague on most of things I experienced and even specific events I do remember are choppy and small. 

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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

Have you read the statement from the 3rd witness (posted above)?  I'd say that is very damaging.  Do you believe she's lying?

I'm going to wait to hear more from all of the witnesses, but I've got to say that this isn't looking good for Kavanaugh.

Edited September 26, 2018 by ALarson

[carbon dioxide]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Have you read the statement from the 3rd witness (posted above)?  I'd say that is very damaging.  Do you believe she's lying?

I don' think anyone can prove who is lying and who is telling the truth.  Maybe these allegations are truthful and maybe they are lies.  Who knows.

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, alter idem said:

This group was organized as a reaction against Donald Trump winning the presidency.  Their efforts are directed at opposing him, so it's not surprising that they've taken up this cause.

That might be due to the fact that there is some very credible evidence that Donald Trump is a sexual predator.  Perhaps they are focused on this issue now?  Not sure why that would be a bad thing.

Edited September 26, 2018 by ttribe

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

What exactly will the FBI do on 35 year old allegations?  There is no evidence to process.  One is remembering memories of people back in 1982.  How long ago was that?  Let see some of the top songs of that year where from a search

Physical - Olivia Newton-John
Eye of the Tiger - Survivor
I Love Rock 'N Roll - Joan Jett and The Blackhearts
Ebony & Ivory - Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder

That is a long time ago.    Perhaps a couple of people can be interviewed and that would take a day or two but at the end of the day, they would not have enough evidence to bring charges even if the statute of limitations was not an issue.  I remember the 80s.  Good times but my memories is still vague on most of things I experienced and even specific events I do remember are choppy and small. 

 

I'd imagine they could sort out who is who and who was where? 

[Anijen]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That might be due to the fact that there are some is some very credible evidence that Donald Trump is a sexual predator.  Perhaps they are focused on this issue now?  Not sure why that would be a bad thing.

Didn't stop Clinton

[Kenngo1969]

29 minutes ago, Duncan said:

correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the FBI do this normally for USSC judges? why are they being prevented from doing their job? what is the republican party hiding that the FBI can't get involved? 

If the FBI had found that Judge Kavanaugh reportedly violated state law in any of the six previous background investigations it had conducted in connection with his previous federal employment (including appointment as a federal judge), no doubt, that information would have been included in the FBI's report.  It's interesting how, when Republicans tried to appeal to then-Judge-now-Justice Clarence Thomas's clean FBI background check as evidence that he was fit to be confirmed, then-Senator Joe "Crazy Uncle Joe" Biden apparently felt much different about FBI background checks than former Vice President Biden does today. Then-Senator Biden placed no credence in the report of the background investigation of then-Judge Clarence Thomas because (and he emphasized each individual syllable), "The F-B-I does not reach a con-clu-sion.  Per-i-od.  Per-i-od."  Today, by contrast, it is absolutely imperative that the FBI conduct yet another investigation of Judge Kavanaugh (because, apparently, in Judge Kavanaugh's case, somehow (in direct contrast to that of then-Judge Thomas's case in 1991), "the F-B-I will reach a con-clu-sion.  Per-i-od.  Per-i-od."  Now, the FBI's (7th!) background investigation of Judge Kavanaugh will, by contrast, finally expose him for the cad he was all those years ago (and heck, given the strength of the evidence underlying these allegations, we might as well conclude that he hasn't reformed at all and that he's still a cad!  After all, leopards don't change their spots!) 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/25/biden_1991_fbi_do_not_reach_conclusions_when_investigating_sexual_misconduct.html

Edited September 26, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Anijen said:

Didn't stop Clinton

Same could be said for any number of politicians on either side of the aisle from the past; doesn't mean we shouldn't stand up to it now.

[Duncan]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

If the FBI had found that Judge Kavanaugh reportedly violated state law in any of the six previous background investigations it had conducted in connection with his previous federal employment (including appointment as a federal judge), no doubt, that information would have been included in the FBI's report.  It's interesting how, when Republicans tried to appeal to then-Judge-now-Justice Clarence Thomas's clean FBI background check as evidence that he was fit to be confirmed, then-Senator Joe "Crazy Uncle Joe" Biden apparently felt much different about FBI background checks than former Vice President Biden does today. Then-Senator Biden placed no credence in the report of the background investigation of then-Judge Clarence Thomas because (and he emphasized each individual syllable), "The F-B-I does not reach a con-clu-sion.  Per-i-od.  Per-i-od."  Today, by contrast, it is absolutely imperative that the FBI conduct yet another investigation of Judge Kavanaugh (because, apparently, in Judge Kavanaugh's case, somehow (in direct contrast to that of then-Judge Thomas's case in 1991), "the F-B-I will reach a con-clu-sion.  Per-i-od.  Per-i-od."  

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/25/biden_1991_fbi_do_not_reach_conclusions_when_investigating_sexual_misconduct.html

Lindsay Graham was waving the morality flag over Bill Clinton and he seems to have changed flags now, plus you have Turtle Man Mitch saying he would confirm Kavanaugh regardless of whatever, I thought they are all supposed to keep an open mind about this? If you had a juror say at the beginning of the trial say that regardless of the evidence i'm going to find them guilty , you would disqualify that person 

[Kenngo1969]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I'd imagine they could sort out who is who and who was where? 

Sure.  Tell us where you were and what you were doing, in detail, on September 26, 1995.  Thanks in advance!  

[Anijen]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Same could be said for any number of politicians on either side of the aisle from the past; doesn't mean we shouldn't stand up to it now.

I agree. I believe the allegations should be investigated. Sexuall assault should never be tolerated. I only brought up Clinton because so many people seemed blind to the Juanita Broaddrick  rape claim, but miraculously have had their blindness healed when it comes from a person who is of a different political party. Is all I'm saying.

Again it is worth saying; allegations should be investigated. Sexuall assault should never be tolerated.

[Kenngo1969]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Lindsay Graham was waving the morality flag over Bill Clinton and he seems to have changed flags now, plus you have Turtle Man Mitch saying he would confirm Kavanaugh regardless of whatever, I thought they are all supposed to keep an open mind about this? If you had a juror say at the beginning of the trial say that regardless of the evidence i'm going to find them guilty , you would disqualify that person 

I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact that the same people who were saying that FBI background investigations were worthless in 1991 when it came to then-Judge Clarence Thomas now are saying that it's absolutely imperative that Judge Brett Kavanaugh undergo a (7th!) FBI background investigation before being voted on in 2018.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Didn't stop Clinton

Yet the same people shoving this skeevy nominee through and fully  supporting a sexually creepy and serially lying president were willing to impeach Clinton over a single non-predatory sexual affair and a single line of perjury. I happen to think they were right to do so in Clinton’s case. I think we should have impeached him. 

I also believe sexually predatory behavior is exponentially worse then consensual sexual behavior even though both are sins. The Republican senators do not agree which I think reveals in them the kind of hypocrisy our Lord and Savior suggested sends that generation of vipers directly to hell. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

 

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact that the same people who were saying that FBI background investigations were worthless in 1991 when it came to then-Judge Clarence Thomas now are saying that it's absolutely imperative that Judge Brett Kavanaugh undergo a (7th!) FBI background investigation before being voted on in 2018.

So the same senators now, Chuck Schumer, Cory Booker et al were around in 1991 saying that to Clarence Thomas?

[Duncan]

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Sure.  Tell us where you were and what you were doing, in detail, on September 26, 1995.  Thanks in advance!  

i'll get my calendar!

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yet that very group is arguing for yet more delay.  

It's why they are arguing for the delay that matters.  Are they arguing for the delay because more time is needed to thoroughly investigate the allegations? If they are, then whether or not someone sat on the allegations for a while before presenting them to the senate committee isn't relevant to the group's requests.

[Anijen]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yet the same people shoving this skeevy nominee through and fully  supporting a sexually creepy and serially lying president were willing to impeach Clinton over a single non-predatory sexual affair and a single line of perjury. I happen to think they were right to do so in Clinton’s case. I think we should have impeached him. 

I also believe sexually predatory behavior is exponentially worse then consensual sexual behavior even though both are sins. The Republican senators do not agree which I think reveals in them the kind of hypocrisy our Lord and Savior suggested sends that generation of vipers directly to hell. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

 

Nehor, I totally agree. However, just to clarify, I was speaking of Juanita Broaddrick's rape claim and not the consensual affair or the perjury.

I have also seen many men's lives ruined by false allegations. This allegation against Kavanaugh, in my opinion, appears to be politically motivated. I would like to see every allegation investigated. Sexuall assault should never be tolerated. Thus, for fairness to both people, both should be put under oath and questioned including all witnesses. If the allegations are found to be true then do not confirm Kavanaugh and charge him with a crime (if the statute of limitations can be tolled). If these allegations were made up purely to stop a Trump nomination, then defamation and perhaps perjury charges should happen.  Either way, whatever the outcome would be justice.

thanks Anijen 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

I agree that it can a political ploy.  But it can also be a request that allegations are thoroughly examined before a vote is taken.  Have the allegations been thoroughly examined?  (sincere question, I have no idea).

[alter idem]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

two words, Merrick Garland.

Except that not appointing someone in the last portion of a President's term is a common practice--it's often called the Thurmond rule and recently the 'Biden rule' since he invoked it in 1992.  Both parties have invoked this 'rule' when it is to their advantage--as the Republicans did with Merrick Garland.  But don't think the Democrats won't use it also when it's in their best interests--they do also.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

 

I agree that the late release does suggest partisanship.  But my questions concern the group in the OP (who have no control over when information is released).  In your opinion, have all the allegations been thoroughly investigated or could it be morally responsible to request a delay until that happens?  Do LDS senator's have a moral responsibility to make sure that the allegations are thoroughly investigated before proceeding?

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree that it can a political ploy.  

Yes, it can be a political ploy, but that doesn't mean the accusations are not true.  I'm reserving judgment until I hear more.....but that last statement posted here by another accuser is very damaging, IMO.

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But it can also be a request that allegations are thoroughly examined before a vote is taken.  Have the allegations been thoroughly examined?

I don't think they have.  We still haven't heard from all the accusers or witnesses.

Edited September 26, 2018 by ALarson

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's why they are arguing for the delay that matters.  Are they arguing for the delay because more time is needed to thoroughly investigate the allegations? If they are, then whether or not someone sat on the allegations for a while before presenting them to the senate committee isn't relevant to the group's requests.

I disagree.  I think it is very relevant.  I don't think that Senate Democrats ought to get the benefit of dragging their feet for months.  While, strictly speaking, constitutional speedy trial considerations aren't relevant here, if we're going to give even alleged criminals the benefit of not allowing allegations to hang over their heads for extended, indefinite periods of time, then surely we should do the same for people who haven't been charged with crimes.  If a majority of Senators are convinced that Judge Kavanaugh did what he is alleged to have done, their response to that suspicion should be vote down his appointment to the United States Supreme Court, not to allow unsubstantiated allegations to hang over his head like the sword of Damocles unless and until someone finally decides to cut the thread.

Edited September 27, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I disagree.  I think it is very relevant.  I don't think that Senate Democrats ought to get the benefit of dragging their feet for months.  While, strictly speaking, constitutional speedy trial considerations aren't relevant here, if we're going to give even alleged criminals the benefit of not allowing allegations to hang over their heads for extended, indefinite periods of time, then surely we should do the same for people who haven't been charged with crimes.  If a majority of Senators are convinced that Judge Kavanaugh did what he is alleged to have done, their response to that suspicion should be vote down his appointment to the United States Supreme Court, not to allow unsubstantiated allegations to hang over his head like the sword of Damocles unless and until someone finally decides to cut the thread.

No one is arguing for the bolded part though.  The Mormon women's group (which claims to be made up of republicans and democrats) is arguing there should be more time to investigate the allegations.