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

[randy]

5 hours ago, alter idem said:

 

Who are these 'witnesses' and what are the claiming to corroborate?  You need to be very careful in this, the statements must be looked at carefully and you must read and listen critically to what is said.  Are they claiming to have actually witnessed the act?  Are they claiming that they witnessed  Kavanaugh do this?  I know of no witnesses who have gone so far as to back up these claims by these two women for two separate incidents.  

You say there are four 'corroborating witnesses'...were they present at Ford's allegation or Ramirez'?  Do they claim to have attended both parties--one attack was supposed to have taken place at a high school party and one was in college.

 

To call him a liar and say he's lied multiple times under oath---how do you know this?  Do you know him personally to be able to say 'he lies about big and small things'?  Is this simply your opinion or do you have evidence to make such a claim?

 

The problem here is that Ford and Ramirez are the accusers--in a court of law, that puts them on the prosecution side and Kavanaugh is the defendant.   A defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof lies with the accusers.  Kavanaugh does not have to prove his innocence, they have to prove his guilt.   This is being forgotten in the quest to destroy this man so that they can prevent him from serving on the Supreme court.

 

Many have spoken in 'support' of the accusers in their claims.  What does that mean?  'Support' does not mean they have any evidence or actual knowledge to offer.  

Concur.    Dr. Fords corroborating witnesses have only declared that Dr. Ford mentioned to them about the incident.  What does that prove?  Judge Kavanaugh has had over 200 witnesses come forward to testify as to his character and integrity.  All three of these accusers have put forth a total of zero actual witnesses that can actually even put Kavanaugh at the scene of the alleged incidents.   But, to hear some US Senators state that the accused has to prove himself innocent simply because he is a man being accused by a woman...is absolutely staggering to me as an American.  I have always believed..and WILL  ALWAYS believe that we should have the presumption of  "being innocent UNTIL proven guilty".

[alter idem]

55 minutes 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'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.

Have you really read her statement?  She's claiming that she went to parties for 2 years where drugged women were gang raped and yet where are the police reports?  This would have been a huge scandal.  If she knew that these young men were spiking punch and then gang raping women and she watched this happen, I cannot fathom that she remained silent until now!  She doesn't go as far as to accuse him of participating in the gang rapes--she just claims that he was 'present'.  Well, here's a fact--SHE was present as well and she never did anything about it--never warned potential victims, told any parents, told the police???   How is this not damaging to her as well, that is, if it is true.

Her story makes no sense when you look at facts.  She claims to have witnessed these things, gone to some 10 parties and seen it happen repeatedly happen to innocent victims but she did nothing.  She did nothing until 35 years later, at which time she was so outraged at what happened that she now must tell the world.

 

There are three accusers for three separate incidences.  There are no witnesses to the allegations, there is no evidence that these things happened.  There are four people that one of the accusers claims are 'corroborating witnesses'.  But they are only corroborating that she told them her accusations in the last couple of years.   They are not claiming to have witnessed the assault and I believe one of her 'witnesses' has contradicted her claim.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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).

The Judiciary Committee leadership has bent over backwards to be accommodating to Professor Ford, who is expected to testify before the committee tomorrow. The other accusers have surfaced only in the last couple of days, and the scenario really does seem like the Democrats are grasping at straws to disrupt and delay the confirmation process. 

Have you been following the hearings from the beginning? I have to a certain extent. From the opening minutes of the first session, Democrats on the committee were ignoring parliamentary procedure to disrupt the progress of the hearings. And they brought in unruly, shrieking protestors who one by one interrupted the hearing every five minutes or so on average. The last minute allegations against Kavanaugh seem suspiciously timed as a last-ditch, desperate effort to derail the confirmation. 

I don’t begrudge the Democratic Party their right to oppose a nominee. The Republicans did that just before the election of Trump. But destroying a person’s reputation and career — be that person male or female — with tenuous, unproven and unfalsifiable accusations is going too far.

In college, I was a member of the Young Democrats club. But My contempt for the Democratic Party has never been as high as it is now. 

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, alter idem said:

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.

It is a made up rule. It is not common practice. It is always invoked by someone seeking a new President when they have a majority in the Senate. It is not a matter of courtesy or custom. It is just a fiction to make it sound like it is not politically advantageous. Yeah, both sides have used it but it is stupid.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, randy said:

Concur.    Dr. Fords corroborating witnesses have only declared that Dr. Ford mentioned to them about the incident.  What does that prove?  Judge Kavanaugh has had over 200 witnesses come forward to testify as to his character and integrity.  All three of these accusers have put forth a total of zero actual witnesses that can actually even put Kavanaugh at the scene of the alleged incidents.   But, to hear some US Senators state that the accused has to prove himself innocent simply because he is a man being accused by a woman...is absolutely staggering to me as an American.  I have always believed..and WILL  ALWAYS believe that we should have the presumption of  "being innocent UNTIL proven guilty".

And if this was a criminal trial that would mean something. And if this went to trial and Kavanaugh was convicted I would be outraged (barring there being more substantive evidence). The presumption of innocence is not a part of the political process and is not mandatory or even recommended.

It is also “presumed innocent” not “being innocent”.

If the Republicans were smart they would pull Kavanaugh and nominate someone else.

[Anijen]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

I agree, but it will raise the question of when do you have the vote? One allegation comes forward, then a week later another, then a week later another... See what I mean? If a political ploy, then theoretically all nominations (Republican or Democrat), made to the Supreme Court could be delayed indefinitely. I say because these allegations came up at the "11th hour" and also because Kavanagh has passed six prior investigations the vote should take place soon. However, the investigation should be continued, if the allegations are found to be true, then impeach him and, if possible, charge him. I neither want to see a false allegation ruin a mans life, nor heaven forbid see a sexuall assault go unpunished.

[randy]

56 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 

Duncan....how can you hope for them "to keep an open mind" when every Democrat had openly stated their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh well before his initial hearing even took place?  What Senator Feinstein did in her handling of the Ford letter was choregraphed from the beginning...and set the stage for the second Circus that is coming to town tomorrow.  But, I will have my popcorn in hand..and wearing my red clown wig and big red nose and big floppy shoes watching the show.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Have you really read her statement?  She's claiming that she went to parties for 2 years where drugged women were gang raped and yet where are the police reports?  This would have been a huge scandal.  If she knew that these young men were spiking punch and then gang raping women and she watched this happen, I cannot fathom that she remained silent until now!  She doesn't go as far as to accuse him of participating in the gang rapes--she just claims that he was 'present'.  Well, here's a fact--SHE was present as well and she never did anything about it--never warned potential victims, told any parents, told the police???   How is this not damaging to her as well, that is, if it is true.

Her story makes no sense when you look at facts.  She claims to have witnessed these things, gone to some 10 parties and seen it happen repeatedly happen to innocent victims but she did nothing.  She did nothing until 35 years later, at which time she was so outraged at what happened that she now must tell the world.

 

There are three accusers for three separate incidences.  There are no witnesses to the allegations, there is no evidence that these things happened.  There are four people that one of the accusers claims are 'corroborating witnesses'.  But they are only corroborating that she told them her accusations in the last couple of years.   They are not claiming to have witnessed the assault and I believe one of her 'witnesses' has contradicted her claim.  

Oh, you naive sweet summer child. This kind of thing happens all the time and victims are shamed into silence by the culture of normalization, their own shame, and the realization that if they do report it they will be vilified for it and it may cost them their career, their social standing, and possibly more.

I am not sure if these specific allegations are credible but her story in the abstract is pretty credible and it happens all the time.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Judiciary Committee leadership has bent over backwards to be accommodating to Professor Ford, who is expected to testify before the committee tomorrow. The other accusers have surfaced only in the last couple of days, and the scenario really does seem like the Democrats are grasping at straws to disrupt and delay the confirmation process. 

Have you been following the hearings from the beginning? I have to a certain extent. From the opening minutes of the first session, Democrats on the committee were ignoring parliamentary procedure to disrupt the progress of the hearings. And they brought in unruly, shrieking protestors who one by one interrupted the hearing every five minutes or so on average. The last minute allegations against Kavanaugh seem suspiciously timed as a last-ditch, desperate effort to derail the confirmation. 

I don’t begrudge the Democratic Party their right to oppose a nominee. The Republicans did that just before the election of Trump. But destroying a person’s reputation and career — be that person male or female — with tenuous, unproven and unfalsifiable accusations is going too far.

In college, I was a member of the Young Democrats club. But My contempt for the Democratic Party has never been as high as it is now. 

Ok, but that doesn't really answer my question or concern the MWEG group.  Have the allegations been thoroughly examined or is it reasonable to request a delay on voting until they can be?

[Duncan]

Just now, randy said:

Duncan....how can you hope for them "to keep an open mind" when every Democrat had openly stated their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh well before his initial hearing even took place?  What Senator Feinstein did in her handling of the Ford letter was choregraphed from the beginning...and set the stage for the second Circus that is coming to town tomorrow.  But, I will have my popcorn in hand..and wearing my red clown wig and big red nose and big floppy shoes watching the show.

I don't know if that is known about democrats, but is it televised? it's perfect timing to bring it out as I say, you don't bring out a murder weapon, prior to a trial

[randy]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And if this was a criminal trial that would mean something. And if this went to trial and Kavanaugh was convicted I would be outraged (barring there being more substantive evidence). The presumption of innocence is not a part of the political process and is not mandatory or even recommended.

It is also “presumed innocent” not “being innocent”.

If the Republicans were smart they would pull Kavanaugh and nominate someone else.

and you and I both know that even if that were to happen....the EXACT same thing would happen again....and then again and then again.  It wouldn't matter WHO Pres. Trump nominated....because it would be from the list of 25 conservative Judges that he had made known since his election.

Your finer point is well taken,  although I feel quite confident you knew already that is what I had meant to convey.  However, I thank you.  Words do matter.

 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, randy said:

Duncan....how can you hope for them "to keep an open mind" when every Democrat had openly stated their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh well before his initial hearing even took place?  What Senator Feinstein did in her handling of the Ford letter was choregraphed from the beginning...and set the stage for the second Circus that is coming to town tomorrow.  But, I will have my popcorn in hand..and wearing my red clown wig and big red nose and big floppy shoes watching the show.

This is the correct response. At most this might sway a few swing senators but no Democrats are going to go omthis and decide to vote to confirm and almost no Republicans are going to decide to vote against unless this situation becomes too toxic for them right before the mid-terms. Meanwhile both sides prattle on about civility in hearings and fair access to the nominee’s records.

Popcorn is the best way to cope. That and praying that certain people have fatal heart attacks and the insanity will cool off a little.

[SteveO]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Have the allegations been thoroughly examined?  (sincere question, I have no idea).

They’re starting to be examined.  Ford’s polygraph doesn’t match the letter sent to Feinstein.  The actual report is just horrifically bad.  The questions consisted of: Is any part of your written statement false?  No.  Did you make any of it up? No.

The fact it was done in Maryland after claiming she can’t fly due to trauma isn’t a great look either. 

Her four corroborating witnesses are only corroborating the fact that she told them about it 35 years later.  Her original 3 corroborators of the actual event have denied seeing anything.  We still don’t know where or when the event took place. Not exactly sure how the FBI investigates when they don’t know what to investigate. As for the other two allegations...just no.

[randy]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Oh, you naive sweet summer child. This kind of thing happens all the time and victims are shamed into silence by the culture of normalization, their own shame, and the realization that if they do report it they will be vilified for it and it may cost them their career, their social standing, and possibly more.

I am not sure if these specific allegations are credible but her story in the abstract is pretty credible and it happens all the time.

Speaking of being naïve.....who really thinks that if anything even close to what the 3rd accuser has charged happened in ANY High School in the nation....that incident wouldn't have been the talk of the school for months....even years!    I mean really....I have raised four boys and 2 girls...and have 14 grandsons and 8 granddaughters...and I can tell you this.....KIDS TALK !!  

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, randy said:

and you and I both know that even if that were to happen....the EXACT same thing would happen again....and then again and then again.  It wouldn't matter WHO Pres. Trump nominated....because it would be from the list of 25 conservative Judges that he had made known since his election.

Your finer point is well taken,  although I feel quite confident you knew already that is what I had meant to convey.  However, I thank you.  Words do matter.

 

Your argument is that no matter who is nominated some crazy women will sacrificially step into the breach to receive death threats, a permanent scarlet letter in all future Google searches, and the humiliation of being interrogated by the Senate about said assault on national TV by accusing the nominee of sexual assault?

I doubt it.

If women were so eager to do that how come every male nominee is not deluged with accusations? Why were they sleeping through the Gorsuch hearings?

Edited September 26, 2018 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, randy said:

Speaking of being naïve.....who really thinks that if anything even close to what the 3rd accuser has charged happened in ANY High School in the nation....that incident wouldn't have been the talk of the school for months....even years!    I mean really....I have raised four boys and 2 girls...and have 14 grandsons and 8 granddaughters...and I can tell you this.....KIDS TALK !!  

They probably did talk but they weren’t telling their parents or grandparents. It was the kind of thing that was whispered about but no one went to the cops or their teachers. Most who heard it didn’t really believe it. I heard rumors like that in High School. They toned down the rape aspect but it was clear in the boasting that it was not pleasant. I did not believe it. I wonder since if I should have.

There were rumors about the best prank I pulled at my High School (still proud of that) but I was never punished or caught. To be clear was also not predatory or involve any kind of sex or any kind of assault because I was a decent human being.

Edited September 26, 2018 by The Nehor

[Anijen]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And if this was a criminal trial that would mean something.

Correction; it would be inadmissible as hearsay. ["corroborating witnesses have only declared that Dr. Ford mentioned to them about the incident"]

 

Quote

And if this went to trial and Kavanaugh was convicted I would be outraged (barring there being more substantive evidence). 

I wouldn't be outraged that he was convicted. I would be happy the perv went to prison.

 

Quote

The presumption of innocence is not a part of the political process and is not mandatory or even recommended.

You are very correct. The presumption of innocence has always meant to be presumed in a court of law. Presumptions, biases, opinions, politics, are all normal and we all have them. We are asked to set aside them for example if we are on a jury or a judge.

 

Quote

If the Republicans were smart they would pull Kavanaugh and nominate someone else.

If Kavanaugh is innocent, I would like to see his nomination go through. My reasoning is this; If these allegations are found to be false and if the R's pull the nomination and ask Trump for a new one, it will show that this type of political ploy is successful and every nominee would face sometype of scrutiny with every nomination. If these allegations are found to be false, then a mans career, reputation, life, has been destroyed with no justice (i.e., if allegations are false, a very capable judge not only does not serve as Supreme Court Justice, but has to live with stigma and be ostracized from half the country for nothing.

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Your argument is that no matter who is nominated some crazy women will sacrificial step into the breach to receive death threats, a permanent scarlet letter in all future Google searches, and the humiliation of being interrogated by the Senate about said assault on national TV by accusing the nominee of sexual assault?

I doubt it.

If women were so eager to do that how come every male nominee is not deluged with accusations? Why were they sleeping through the Gorsuch hearings?

and I doubt anyone can name any of Trump's 16 accusers, that have been mysteriously disappeared/paid off or any of Cosby's 59 accuser's, clearly these women are not doing it for the fame

[randy]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Your argument is that no matter who is nominated some crazy women will sacrificial step into the breach to receive death threats, a permanent scarlet letter in all future Google searches, and the humiliation of being interrogated by the Senate about said assault on national TV by accusing the nominee of sexual assault?

I doubt it.

If women were so eager to do that how come every male nominee is not deluged with accusations? Why were they sleeping through the Gorsuch hearings?

No...actually I was referring to the one Woman judge (can't recall her name) who had made the "final four" off of the list of 25.  Point being....it truly wouldn't matter who Trump nominated.   So, I guess you're saying that Judge Kavanaugh doesn't have his own "Scarlet Letter", and  death threats and will not be subjected to interrogation by "Spartacus" and his cohorts.... and that his family will not be subject to eternal humiliation?  Really?

I think the answer to that is simply because they were keeping their "powder dry" by not unloading on Gorsuch.  They made the calculation, and accurately so,  that Trump would most likely have the opportunity to make a second nomination to the court.  Blocking THIS  nomination is the one they are willing to fall on their sword for.

Edited September 26, 2018 by randy

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Oh, you naive sweet summer child. This kind of thing happens all the time and victims are shamed into silence by the culture of normalization, their own shame, and the realization that if they do report it they will be vilified for it and it may cost them their career, their social standing, and possibly more.

I am not sure if these specific allegations are credible but her story in the abstract is pretty credible and it happens all the time.

👍

[randy]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and I doubt anyone can name any of Trump's 16 accusers, that have been mysteriously disappeared/paid off or any of Cosby's 59 accuser's, clearly these women are not doing it for the fame

Just like nobody can probably name the woman accusing the #2 Democrat in the DNC Keith Ellison of sexual assault and verbal abuse.  This woman provided actual EVIDENCE of his abuse and yet all we hear about him is...crickets.  Same with Bill Clinton and Juanita Broddericks rape claim.  The Democratic led panel that was hearing evidence wouldn't even read her statement into the record.  Why isn't she believed by the Democrats? or Paula Jones? ….or the family of Mary Jo Kopechne?  both sides have plenty of ammo to shoot at the other.....and to what end?  

[Anijen]

9 minutes ago, randy said:

I think the answer to that is simply because they were keeping their "powder dry" by not unloading on Gorsuch.  They made the calculation, and accurately so,  that Trump would most likely have the opportunity to make a second nomination to the court.  This nomination is the one they are willing to fall on their sword for.

Additionally, when Kennedy retired, the court was balanced four Democrat nominees [Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor] and four Republican nominees [Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch]. Kavanaugh would make a conservative majority (I really have some reservations calling Roberts a pure conservative), thus, giving a 5/4 advantage to conservative justices (or if you prefer Republican nominees).

Hence, there is a greater outcry against Kavanaugh than Gorsuch (although there was an outcry against him as well) because his confirmation would give a slight edge to a conservative Court.

Having said all that, IMO, the vote should take place as soon as possible, but the investigations should be fully continued and if the allegations are shown to be true, then simply impeach him and charge him (if possible to charge him) and send him to prison.

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, randy said:

Just like nobody can probably name the woman accusing the #2 Democrat in the DNC Keith Ellison of sexual assault and verbal abuse.  This woman provided actual EVIDENCE of his abuse and yet all we hear about him is...crickets.  Same with Bill Clinton and Juanita Broddericks rape claim.  The Democratic led panel that was hearing evidence wouldn't even read her statement into the record.  Why isn't she believed by the Democrats? or Paula Jones? ….or the family of Mary Jo Kopechne?  both sides have plenty of ammo to shoot at the other.....and to what end?  

to say nothing about the Access Hollywood bus and ruining video games!!!!!! yuck, even though I haven't played a video game since 1991, but still! to what end is I am glad I live in Canada! few if any could name a Supreme Court justice! we don't care!

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, randy said:

No...actually I was referring to the one Woman judge (can't recall her name) who had made the "final four" off of the list of 25.  Point being....it truly wouldn't matter who Trump nominated.   So, I guess you're saying that Judge Kavanaugh doesn't have his own "Scarlet Letter", and  death threats and will not be subjected to interrogation by "Spartacus" and his cohorts.... and that his family will not be subject to eternal humiliation?  Really?

I think the answer to that is simply because they were keeping their "powder dry" by not unloading on Gorsuch.  They made the calculation, and accurately so,  that Trump would most likely have the opportunity to make a second nomination to the court.  Blocking THIS  nomination is the one they are willing to fall on their sword for.

Of course he has gotten death threats and is being lambasted. I still do not see equality. He is likely still going to end up with a lifetime appointment.

As to “keeping the powder dry” that is a really silly argument. I find it more likely that Gorsuch just hadn’t actually assaulted anyone.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, randy said:

Just like nobody can probably name the woman accusing the #2 Democrat in the DNC Keith Ellison of sexual assault and verbal abuse.  This woman provided actual EVIDENCE of his abuse and yet all we hear about him is...crickets.  Same with Bill Clinton and Juanita Broddericks rape claim.  The Democratic led panel that was hearing evidence wouldn't even read her statement into the record.  Why isn't she believed by the Democrats? or Paula Jones? ….or the family of Mary Jo Kopechne?  both sides have plenty of ammo to shoot at the other.....and to what end?  

The evidence was only that she told someone but yes, that deserves further investigation. The Democrats are not perfect in this respect but compare Kavanaugh to Senator Franken and it looks less like there is equivalency on both sides.