What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Brett Kavanaugh (2 Viewers)

Would your answer to # 2 be any different if BK was a liberal judge appointed by Barrack Obama?

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 7.0%

  • No

    Votes: 212 93.0%
  • Total voters
    228
SaintsInDome2006 said:
As I understand it:

  • 2 people say they heard of the Ramirez incident right after it happened.
  • One person at least, and he apparently a known respected figure in DC government, says he personally witnessed BK do the same thing at another party.
These two incidents give some context to what might have been happening with Kavanaugh, Judge and Ford as well IMO.
Click to expand...
People hearing about incidents do not make them true.  Besides, those incidents are more on the level of what Al Frankin did and are more College Shannanigans.  Strictly speaking they can be termed sexual asault, but really they are just stupid pranks not meant to harm.  Frankin did resign because it was the height of the Me-too movement and was forced to.  In hindsight most Democrats now feel it was an overreaction and he shouldn't have.  I think if it came out today, Frankin would not resign.  I don't think those shed much light on the more serious accusation which Ford seems to recall.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This was an absolute journalistic failure, but it's also professional to include the correction.

However the fact that is the woman by the terms of the story itself may have been too drunk to recall it, which is kind of the point. And being at such a party is very much in keeping with the history surrounding Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...


The NYT is a great paper. But - correction or not - it can't have errors like this in the age of Trump. It just gives him and his supporters ammunition. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
This story is very strange. I find the above to be incredibly odd. To contradict Kavanaugh saying it would have been the talk of the campus, they bring up how Ramirez's mother heard about it and two students? Who were the other 5 unnamed people? Her cousins? 

They bring up how the legal team provided a list of 25 people...

Let's not forget that when the ramirez story first broke it came out that the New York Times refused to run with the story because after interviewing dozens of people they couldn't find anybody with FIRSTHAND knowledge. Interesting that all of a sudden they are cool with running a story that also has no firsthand corroborating witnesses. It also took 6 days for ramirez, after consulting with attorneys, to be willing to say that it was kavanaugh that did it. 

The only thing new in this story is the allegation from Stier(kind of from him). It is important to note that Stier didn't actually speak to the NYT, the story was relayed by two unnamed officials. According this reporter the book written by these reporters mentions that the alleged victim has no recollection of this event. 

Also before we accuse the senate of stonewalling an investigation here, lets not forget that ramirez and her attorney refused to talk to the senate judiciary committee (at least according to Collins and Kennedy). If I was a senator and I was going to request an FBI investigation about an event in the 80's, I sure as hell would want to talk to the person making the accusation. Otherwise it sure seems like all they wanted to do was stall and get the FBI to interview 25 people that were already interviewed by the NYT and determined to have zero firsthand knowledge. 

This whole thing reads so ridiculous. The senate refused to let the FBI interview Debbie's mom!!! 
Click to expand...
About Ramirez - Kavanaugh's response when asked, under oath, was that if it had happened it would have been the talk of the campus.

The point of the 25 'witnesses' is that that these people did hear of the event in real time. It was the talk of the campus.

- Now let's say I agree with you that the Ramirez incident is unprovable. It clearly is. What continues to vex me is Kavanaugh lying about events around it, seemingly unnecessarily.

***

The Stier story to me also is interesting not because it :proves: Brett Kavanaugh did a bad thing and so he has no right to be on the USSC. The point to me is about BK misrepresenting what kind of person he was as a youth under oath.

- As I noted above the fact the alleged victim doesn't remember it is totally in keeping with the details of the kind of party we're talking about. The same is true of the Ford and Ramirez stories too. 

****

I'm not clamoring for impeachment here. What happened here? It seems to me that the most important evidence here is Mike Judge's book. Yes, I think these were young guys who got loaded and did wild, offensive things. Got hammered, threw up, did extremely offensive things to girls, which yeah in the extreme like these stories could be assault.

I think you've had some really good thoughtful informed posts on this topic. To me as has been said, right, it's true nothing has been proved. But what I do see between the Mike Judge book, the calendar, reports about Georgetown Prep independent of this, and the reports from Yale, paint a picture of a young man who would have very much been in the locations, places, situations described, and in a position and of a typical behavior to act the way described. I completely agree that's not proof. But personally I think he should have withdrawn and his behavior in confirmation and (as a prospective justcve) joining a partisan campaign to paint a different picture from the truth should have disqualified him. The hyperpartisan process has damaged the Court here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Besides, those incidents are ... College Shannanigans.  Strictly speaking they can be termed sexual asault, but really they are just stupid pranks not meant to harm. 
Click to expand...
You should probably stick to the “no eyewitness” argument and leave this one alone. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
About Ramirez - Kavanaugh's response when asked, under oath, was that if it had happened it would have been the talk of the campus.

The point of the 25 'witnesses' is that that these people did hear of the event in real time. It was the talk of the campus.
Click to expand...
This is not an accurate depiction. Not even close. The article states that 7 people had heard of it prior to kavanaugh being a federal judge. Not 25. 7. And only two were classmates. and one of the 7 was her mother. How is that a representation at all of the talk of the campus. 

The 25 number is being floated by her legal team. They say they gave the FBI a list of 25 people that may have had corroborating evidence. Coming from an atty that literally means nothing.  

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I can honestly say I have never had cause to push another man's penis around.  I may have **** punched a guy or two if they were standing to close to me while I was seated or lying on a mat or field of play, but push around, no, never.
Click to expand...
I have so many questions I will never likely voice about the logistics of what happened.

 
parasaurolophus said:
This is not an accurate depiction. Not even close. The article states that 7 people had heard of it prior to kavanaugh being a federal judge. Not 25. 7. And only two were classmates. and one of the 7 was her mother. How is that a representation at all of the talk of the campus. 

The 25 number is being floated by her legal team. They say they gave the FBI a list of 25 people that may have had corroborating evidence. Coming from an atty that literally means nothing.  
Click to expand...
Like I said..Here is the democratic party

"LOOK.....A SQUIRREL!!!"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
People hearing about incidents do not make them true.  Besides, those incidents are more on the level of what Al Frankin did and are more College Shannanigans.  Strictly speaking they can be termed sexual asault, but really they are just stupid pranks not meant to harm. 
Click to expand...
They are college shenanigans if you are a dooshy college bro that enjoys whipping his #### out.

They are sexual assualt for everyone else

 
  • Smile
Reactions: rct
but Antonio Brown is seen as innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger

but Kavanaugh is still in the news as guilty 

gotta love how people's views change in the wind huh ?  :(    

 
Stealthycat said:
but Antonio Brown is seen as innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger

but Kavanaugh is still in the news as guilty 

gotta love how people's views change in the wind huh ?  :(    
Click to expand...
Really? By whom?  I probably haven't been paying enough attention, but it seems like the same people saying Ford is a liar and a political operative are the ones saying Brown couldn't possibly have done what is being said.

 
Stealthycat said:
but Antonio Brown is seen as innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger

but Kavanaugh is still in the news as guilty 

gotta love how people's views change in the wind huh ?  :(    
Click to expand...
Do you know of a specific person that believes (1) that Antonio Brown is innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger; and (2) Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault?

 
bigbottom said:
Do you know of a specific person that believes (1) that Antonio Brown is innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger; and (2) Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault?
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

It kinda feels like there are people who believe the women who come forward and want real investigations to find out if these things happened as reported and people who don't.

 
Henry Ford said:
Really? By whom?  I probably haven't been paying enough attention, but it seems like the same people saying Ford is a liar and a political operative are the ones saying Brown couldn't possibly have done what is being said.
Click to expand...
I saw few that was saying Kavanaugh was innocent until proven guilty.

I'm seeing many say ABrown is innocent until proven guilty

 
Stealthycat said:
I saw few that was saying Kavanaugh was innocent until proven guilty.

I'm seeing many say ABrown is innocent until proven guilty
Click to expand...
Unless you are seeing different opinions from the same people on these two subjects then I don't see what point you are trying to make here.

 
Sheriff Bart said:
lol, Antonio Brown. 
Click to expand...
Then I think you misunderstood my question, which was whether he was referring to a specific person who believed both (1) that Antonio Brown is innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger; and (2) that Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
Then I think you misunderstood my question, which was whether he was referring to a specific person who believed both (1) that Antonio Brown is innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger; and (2) Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault.
Click to expand...
Yes sir, I misunderstood. 

 
bigbottom said:
Then I think you misunderstood my question, which was whether he was referring to a specific person who believed both (1) that Antonio Brown is innocent and the woman accusing him a gold digger; and (2) Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault.
Click to expand...
I suspect it's the circles @Stealthycat is running in....being a Republican/Trump Supporter/GOP guy who's also a Pats fan (assuming because of the Pats helmet as his avatar) it's pretty simple to see where this might be his perception.  The challenge is getting him out of his cocoon to realize the rest of the world isn't in the same boat.  That's not going to happen.

 
parasaurolophus said:
This is not an accurate depiction. Not even close. The article states that 7 people had heard of it prior to kavanaugh being a federal judge. Not 25. 7. And only two were classmates. and one of the 7 was her mother. How is that a representation at all of the talk of the campus. 

The 25 number is being floated by her legal team. They say they gave the FBI a list of 25 people that may have had corroborating evidence. Coming from an atty that literally means nothing.  
Click to expand...
The quote is, “Ms. Ramirez’s legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence.” Corroborating that this story came out after the event I take it. Two said they heard the story after it happened on campus. You can argue as to whether Ramirez’s lawyers submitting those names to the FBI is sufficient, but it certainly sounds to me like yeah it was a story on campus contrary to what Kavanaugh said.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
It's a little esoteric, but IT=INFO, and there's no "expires by" date on it.
Click to expand...
It's amazing to me that Martavis Bryant has finished high school, played through college, played a four year NFL career and has been without a job for two years and this is still funny.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
I did, and the Stier allegation is that Kavanaugh exposed himself and his friend pushed Kavanaugh’s penis into a woman’s hand. I’m asking if you believe that’s not actually sexually assault, regardless of the issue of what kind of group of friends go around pushing each other’s penises around. 
Click to expand...
My experience with when you start asking questions like this, especially questions that start differently and then are rephrased, is that this discussion wont be very productive between us.

I am trying to not be rude to you and get into it less with you so I am going to take a pass on this. I stated(in the previous post) that what was paraphrased is not sexual assault. You can post a critique of that statement or disagreement and I wont be offended or post a retort. I am sure people would like to get your thoughts on the subject, legally or otherwise.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus said:
My experience with when you start asking questions like this, especially questions that start differently and then are rephrased, is that this discussion wont be very productive between us.

I am trying to not be rude to you and get into it less with you so I am going to take a pass on this. I stated(in the previous post) that what was paraphrased is not sexual assault. You can post a critique of that statement or disagreement and I wont be offended or post a retort. I am sure people would like to get your thoughts on the subject, legally or otherwise.  
Click to expand...
If you don't want to discuss, that's fine.  You seemed to be making a definitive statement that is exactly the opposite of my understanding of what was alleged.  Just wanted clarification.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This was an absolute journalistic failure, but it's also professional to include the correction.

However the fact that is the woman by the terms of the story itself may have been too drunk to recall it, which is kind of the point. And being at such a party is very much in keeping with the history surrounding Kavanaugh. 
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more that this article is a journalistic failure. I would love to know how the discussions went. They literally ran the same info that they passed on running last year. Is it because this got framed as some rich vs poor thing? 

The max stier thing is really weird too to publish considering how they passed on running the ramirez story last year. Wapo had this same stier info last year but refused to run it because they couldn't get stier on record or the alleged victim and couldn't get any witnesses.

The senators now calling for impeachment are just grandstanding since the stier allegation was known to them previously. This isn't new info to them...

Last year, The Washington Post independently confirmed that lawmakers and authorities knew of the claim
Click to expand...

 
parasaurolophus said:
My experience with when you start asking questions like this, especially questions that start differently and then are rephrased, is that this discussion wont be very productive between us.

I am trying to not be rude to you and get into it less with you so I am going to take a pass on this. I stated(in the previous post) that what was paraphrased is not sexual assault. You can post a critique of that statement or disagreement and I wont be offended or post a retort. I am sure people would like to get your thoughts on the subject, legally or otherwise.  
Click to expand...
Have posts been removed from this thread?  I'm sort of lost here.  The post where you were talking about "not sexual assault" was the alleged event with Kavanaugh, his friend, his penis and some girl, no?  Is that what you are suggesting isn't sexual assault?  Or is there a newer allegation that have come to light?

 
So I joked about the Mom in the NYT story and made a crack about the other people being able to corroborate as being her cousins, which was meant completely as a joke, but now actually seems like such ridiculousness is incredibly possible.

From the original New Yorker story...

Ramirez told her mother and sister about an upsetting incident at the time, but did not describe the details to either due to her embarrassment.
Click to expand...
That quote makes the new NYT piece look even worse. 

 
Things you don't expect to see and read in senate judiciary docs. 

Photograph of Delta Kappa Epsilon: A photograph of the DKE fraternity in the 1988 Yale Banner yearbook shows (redcated) (who was identified by a Yale graduate with whom the Committee spoke) with his pants down and his genitals exposed. (Redacted) was the classmate identified by as the individual known to drop his pants and expose himself at parties.50
Click to expand...
The photo, blurred out, is attached...

The text messages between Karenx2 also illustrate just how thoroughly researched this story was. So many publications were after this. I liked how they made fun of buzzfeed and TMZ. Their range of emotions was interesting too.   

 
parasaurolophus said:
Things you don't expect to see and read in senate judiciary docs. 

The photo, blurred out, is attached...

The text messages between Karenx2 also illustrate just how thoroughly researched this story was. So many publications were after this. I liked how they made fun of buzzfeed and TMZ. Their range of emotions was interesting too.   
Click to expand...
You're suggesting there was only one DKE who would expose himself at parties?

Also, Kavanaugh wasn't an undergraduate in 1988.

 
parasaurolophus said:
I couldn't agree more that this article is a journalistic failure. I would love to know how the discussions went. They literally ran the same info that they passed on running last year. Is it because this got framed as some rich vs poor thing? 
Click to expand...
I think what happened is this is actually a story about a forthcoming book, so the details are in the book. It's been a strange path for this story and it's been even stranger in the final unfurling, which is part of the problem. Frankly I think NYT has some editor problems and editors are one of those things like strings in action movies no one should ever see.

 
parasaurolophus said:
The guy mentioned in the docs was a year younger than kavanaugh and ramirez. 
Click to expand...
Right.  My point is that this guy was "the" guy who exposed himself at parties in 1988.  That's less relevant than one would hope to, for instance, Ramirez's allegation that he exposed himself to her in the 1983/84 school year at a freshman dorm party.

Edit: though I guess it does suggest that DKE was okay with young men pledging who would whip it out at parties.  That's something.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus said:
The max stier thing is really weird too to publish considering how they passed on running the ramirez story last year. Wapo had this same stier info last year but refused to run it because they couldn't get stier on record or the alleged victim and couldn't get any witnesses.

The senators now calling for impeachment are just grandstanding since the stier allegation was known to them previously. This isn't new info to them...

Last year, The Washington Post independently confirmed that lawmakers and authorities knew of the claim
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
A classmate named Max Stier alleged that he saw Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different dorm party, where he said friends pushed Kavanaugh’s penis into the hand of a female student. The reporters wrote that senators and the FBI were aware of Stier’s claim but that the FBI did not investigate. (Last year, The Washington Post independently confirmed that lawmakers and authorities knew of the claim, but did not publish a story because the alleged witnesses were not identified and the woman said to be involved declined to comment.)
Click to expand...
- I think elsewhere it's been reported that a Senator (Coons perhaps) reported it to the FBI.

It was GOP Sen Kennedy from the Great State of Louisiana who asked Kavanaugh about the Ramirez incident. That's whom BK was responding to when he said if it had happened it would have been talked about on campus.

It really wasn't FBI's job to settle this or do a criminal investigation. They were doing a background check. Stier was known and IMO the people not knowing all this was on the Senate Dems.

My feeling then like it is now is that this is not about "proof". Kavanaugh was not on trial. IMO I don't think it's too much to ask that our USSC Justices be Boy/Girl Scouts, that they have led exemplary lives. Not people who have mysterious debts handled by unknown patrons, who have stories about assault floating around them. The Stier issue is clearly important because the charge or claim was that Ford wildly made up a story or confused one into existence.... but then also Ramirez did the same..... and then Stier also did the same? I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about someone who is potentially subject to compromise, who appears to have lied about details surrounding the issues at question, and who may (may yes) have done some horrible things as a youth. I think really people want to talk about the third thing, when really it's the first two that could have been thoroughly run through by Democrats and Republicans alike.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
- I think elsewhere it's been reported that a Senator (Coons perhaps) reported it to the FBI.

It was GOP Sen Kennedy from the Great State of Louisiana who asked Kavanaugh about the Ramirez incident. That's whom BK was responding to when he said if it had happened it would have been talked about on campus.

It really wasn't FBI's job to settle this or do a criminal investigation. They were doing a background check. Stier was known and IMO the people not knowing all this was on the Senate Dems.

My feeling then like it is now is that this is not about "proof". Kavanaugh was not on trial. IMO I don't think it's too much to ask that our USSC Justices be Boy/Girl Scouts, that they have led exemplary lives. Not people who have mysterious debts handled by unknown patrons, who have stories about assault floating around them. The Stier issue is clearly important because the charge or claim was that Ford wildly made up a story or confused one into existence.... but then also Ramirez did the same..... and then Stier also did the same? I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about someone who is potentially subject to compromise, who appears to have lied about details surrounding the issues at question, and who may (may yes) have done some horrible things as a youth. I think really people want to talk about the thrid thing, when really it's the first two that could have been thoroughly run through by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree on the bolded. "Best of the best" should be a minimum requirement.

 
The Commish said:
Have posts been removed from this thread?  I'm sort of lost here.  The post where you were talking about "not sexual assault" was the alleged event with Kavanaugh, his friend, his penis and some girl, no?  Is that what you are suggesting isn't sexual assault?  Or is there a newer allegation that have come to light?
Click to expand...
I think the "not sexual assault" conversation started with this post:

parasaurolophus said:
Blind to whats come out? 

The newest accusation isnt even an accusation of sexual assault. We literally have senators talking about impeaching a supreme court justice over  hearsay about something that wasnt even sexual assault. Actually we dont even have hearsay. We have reporters paraphrasing hearsay, and of course leaving out critical parts of it.

Thats the "new" info that we are blind to? Come on. 
Click to expand...

 
Stealthycat said:
I saw few that was saying Kavanaugh was innocent until proven guilty.

I'm seeing many say ABrown is innocent until proven guilty
Click to expand...
But neither have been charged with a crime. 

 
VandyMan said:
The Commish said:
Have posts been removed from this thread?  I'm sort of lost here.  The post where you were talking about "not sexual assault" was the alleged event with Kavanaugh, his friend, his penis and some girl, no?  Is that what you are suggesting isn't sexual assault?  Or is there a newer allegation that have come to light?
Click to expand...
I think the "not sexual assault" conversation started with this post:

parasaurolophus said:
Blind to whats come out? 

The newest accusation isnt even an accusation of sexual assault. We literally have senators talking about impeaching a supreme court justice over  hearsay about something that wasnt even sexual assault. Actually we dont even have hearsay. We have reporters paraphrasing hearsay, and of course leaving out critical parts of it.

Thats the "new" info that we are blind to? Come on. 
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Isn't that the story about Kavanaugh, his penis, his friend and the girl?  While it could absolutely be hearsay and completely fabricated, the scenario seems to be the very definition of sexual assault to me :shrug:  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sabertooth
FBI being asked to circle back on Brett Kavanaugh by Senator Whitehouse
2 3 4
Replies
157
Views
3K
shadrap
shadrap
E
  • Poll
Liberals of the PSF - tell us a little about yourselves
2 3
Replies
107
Views
2K
Zow
Zow
GordonGekko
How The Activist MSM Is Burying Alleged SCOTUS Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt (5/12/22 6:22 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Boston
Boston

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top