Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

FBI being asked to circle back on Brett Kavanaugh by Senator Whitehouse


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

Good.  I find liberals take appalling.  It is disgusting that the left was digging through high school yearbooks interrogating a respectable man about adolescence activities.  I find it disgusting how the left constantly dehumanizes people on right while putting people on their side on a pedestal.   I have no intention of piling on Kavanaugh as the left has thoroughly and ruthlessly attacked a man who has nothing but a well respected distinguished career for political purposed.  

Adolescence activities?  You can't make this stuff up. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is a naked political grab for his seat, nothing more than that.

If there are criminal charges he should face, investigate away. However, I doubt that is the case. I suspect we are past the statute of limitations.   While I agree a full investigation shou

You have a significant interpretation problem....almost as if it's preconceived.  Assuming "everything" above is supposed to be "everyone"               

5 minutes ago, squistion said:

Adolescence activities?  You can't make this stuff up. :lol:

90% of the questions surrounded adolenscence bullcrap such as devil's triangles, excessive drinking, references to other girls, etc.  It had zero to do with the actual allegation and it was a complete disgrace to the process.  Easily the lowest of the low points in Supreme Court confirmation questioning, surpassing even the disgracefulness of the Thomas confirmation.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2021 at 6:07 PM, the moops said:

I'm sure you had the same reaction to Benghazi and Hunter Biden and....

Benghazi became a thing because the administration flat out lied about what caused it.

some poor soul who made a video was the scapegoat when those in power lied about the stimulus that led to the burning, looting, & killing.   For purely political reasons the powers in charge(Obama-Hillary) lied to you & me.

 

 

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

I find your take on those responses appalling. If nothing else you could portray kavanaugh in an equally sarcastic way. He was the one dodging questions, refusing to take a poly, screaming at senators, proclaiming his love of beer. Your portrayal is disgusting. 

OMG!  HE LOVES BEER!  IMPEACH!

Your take is absurd and only proves @jon_mx point.  In your zeal to attack him, you made his point shine.  Good job.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Just stop,  What you call “adolescent activities” I call attempted rape, which is a serious crime whether you’re an adolescent or not. 
As I wrote earlier, there’s no way to prove it, no new evidence that’s going to come out, so I don’t think the Democrats should pursue this and I agree that it’s now become a political stunt. But let’s not start pretending Kavanaugh is some sort of pristine dude here. That woman who testified against him was totally believable IMO. He was not believable in response. Personally, I’m pretty sure this guy tried to rape her, and that makes him an awful human being, unfit for the position he will hold for the rest of his life. So spare me the outrage. 

Attempted Rape?  WTH?  Based on what evidence? :lol:

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT JON IS TALKING ABOUT!

Get out of here with that.  You only believe her because, well, it fits the narrative.  Although that Tara Reade - she's a liar, amiright?

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

What you call an attempted rape, I call a created politically manipulated fairytale concocted decades later.  The correct way to refer to it is alledge rape attempt, and even that is being generous.  There is nothing that makes her story credible except that she has convinced herself it is true and it fits the proper narrative.  She never even thought about this story under decades later when it came up in therapy.  Such a memory that not a shred of evidence to validate it, is so completely unreliable.  The human brain is an atrocious memory device no matter how much you want the story to be true.  

but, but, but we believe her------------------------------------------unless the "her" is making accusations against a dem.

 

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

What you call an attempted rape, I call a created politically manipulated fairytale concocted decades later.  The correct way to refer to it is alledge rape attempt, and even that is being generous.  There is nothing that makes her story credible except that she has convinced herself it is true and it fits the proper narrative.  She never even thought about this story under decades later when it came up in therapy.  Such a memory that not a shred of evidence to validate it, is so completely unreliable.  The human brain is an atrocious memory device no matter how much you want the story to be true.  

The more they try to attack you, the more it proves your point.  :thumbup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BladeRunner said:

Attempted Rape?  WTH?  Based on what evidence? :lol:

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT JON IS TALKING ABOUT!

Get out of here with that.  You only believe her because, well, it fits the narrative.  Although that Tara Reade - she's a liar, amiright?

The testimony before the Senate of the alleged victim. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, squistion said:

The testimony before the Senate of the alleged victim. 

Again - WTH?  Testimony based on WHAT evidence?  her word?  Again - WTH?

Not only did she NOT have any evidence, there was contradictory evidence against her politically motivated claim.

This take by you is ABSURD.  I mean, really? We just take her word from an alleged incident 35 years ago?  Again - WTH?

The ONLY reason you believe it is because, well, it fits the narrative.  Not because it has any merit.  Had she come out against a Dem you would have been copying/pasting Twitter responses rejecting it.  Let's be honest here.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Again - WTH?  Testimony based on WHAT evidence?  her word?  Again - WTH?

Not only did she NOT have any evidence, there was contradictory evidence against her politically motivated claim.

This take by you is ABSURD.  I mean, really? We just take her word from an alleged incident 35 years ago?  Again - WTH?

The ONLY reason you believe it is because, well, it fits the narrative.  Not because it has any merit.  Had she come out against a Dem you would have been copying/pasting Twitter responses rejecting it.  Let's be honest here.

Testimony by a witness or a victim is considered evidence. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Just stop,  What you call “adolescent activities” I call attempted rape, which is a serious crime whether you’re an adolescent or not. 
As I wrote earlier, there’s no way to prove it, no new evidence that’s going to come out, so I don’t think the Democrats should pursue this and I agree that it’s now become a political stunt. But let’s not start pretending Kavanaugh is some sort of pristine dude here. That woman who testified against him was totally believable IMO. He was not believable in response. Personally, I’m pretty sure this guy tried to rape her, and that makes him an awful human being, unfit for the position he will hold for the rest of his life. So spare me the outrage. 

you believed her because you wanted to believe her.  some sobbing female who doesn't know how she got to a party, doesn't know who was there except for Kavanaugh, doesn't know where it was at, doesn't know who gave her a ride home, doesn't know when it happened, including the year, delayed getting to the hearing because afraid of flying(yea right), names one friend who was there with her, friend says she wasn't.   how much more do you want?

yea totally believable.

 

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, squistion said:

The testimony before the Senate of the alleged victim. 

so she said-he said.  evidence?  tears & nose blowing?  what evidence?

Complete confirmation to me that most on this board regard facts as facts only if it supports their agenda.

very sad.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, shadrap said:

so she said-he said.  evidence?  tears & nose blowing?  what evidence?

Complete confirmation to me that most on this board regard facts as facts only if it supports their agenda.

very sad.

https://www.casdschools.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=7201&dataid=6177&FileName=02-TypesOfEvidence.pdf

Testimonial evidence is a statement made under oath. An example would be a witness pointing to someone in the courtroom and saying, “That's the guy I saw robbing the grocery store.” This is also called direct evidence or prima facie evidence. Physical evidence can be any object or material relevant in a crime.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, shadrap said:

but, but, but we believe her------------------------------------------unless the "her" is making accusations against a dem.

 

She passed a polygraph, he refused to take one. She supported an fbi investigation, he dodged the question of whether he supported an investigation. Republicans then questioned the validity of the person administering her polygraph, democrats wanted to question him and the republicans didn’t allow that or the data he procured to be put into record. 
 

 

And again, this isn’t a re-litigation of kavanaugh or looking into the allegations. It’s a request that the fbi’s handling of the case is looked at, and whether their actions were normal. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

She never even thought about this story under decades later when it came up in therapy. 

I just want to make the point that this is hardly unusual when it comes to sexual assault. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:

https://www.casdschools.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=7201&dataid=6177&FileName=02-TypesOfEvidence.pdf

Testimonial evidence is a statement made under oath. An example would be a witness pointing to someone in the courtroom and saying, “That's the guy I saw robbing the grocery store.” This is also called direct evidence or prima facie evidence. Physical evidence can be any object or material relevant in a crime.

testimonial evidence is testimonial.  got that.  any other evidence you want to interject?

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shadrap said:

testimonial evidence is testimonial.  got that.  any other evidence you want to interject?

And it is considered evidence in any court of law. Hope you also got that. 

Edited by squistion
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

She passed a polygraph, he refused to take one. She supported an fbi investigation, he dodged the question of whether he supported an investigation. Republicans then questioned the validity of the person administering her polygraph, democrats wanted to question him and the republicans didn’t allow that or the data he procured to be put into record. 
 

 

And again, this isn’t a re-litigation of kavanaugh or looking into the allegations. It’s a request that the fbi’s handling of the case is looked at, and whether their actions were normal. 

polygraph with who doing the polygraph might I ask.  Also what were the questions & answers?  Can you bake a cake?  No-

polygraph passed.  How can the FBI conduct an investigation?

Where were you at?

a house.

where was the house?

somewhere.

who were you with?

girlfriend.

How come girlfriend doesn't remember this.

I don't know.

When did this happen?

Not sure of the date.

What year did this happen.

Don't know.

You said you were not driving to party so how did you get there.

Don't know.

How did you get home.

Don't know.

give me a break.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, squistion said:

And it is considered evidence in any court of law. Hope you also got that. 

yep, got it.  It is evidence, but backed up with NOTHING.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shadrap said:

polygraph with who doing the polygraph might I ask.  Also what were the questions & answers?  Can you bake a cake?  No-

polygraph passed.  How can the FBI conduct an investigation?

Where were you at?

a house.

where was the house?

somewhere.

who were you with?

girlfriend.

How come girlfriend doesn't remember this.

I don't know.

When did this happen?

Not sure of the date.

What year did this happen.

Don't know.

You said you were not driving to party so how did you get there.

Don't know.

How did you get home.

Don't know.

give me a break.

As I said, that could have all been entered into the record but republicans opposed it. They could have questioned the person who administered and all his data. Link

“Additionally, Banks and Katz noted, their request to have the polygraph examiner who administered Ford’s test testify at Thursday’s hearing, “which would have included providing the specific materials you are now requesting," was denied by the GOP.”


For the record, the polygraph included a written statement of the event, and two questions: was any part of it false, and was any part of it fabricated. She answered no, and through 3 different analysis was found that her statements were deemed “not indicative of deception.” 
There were no questions about cake. You can find the report, her handwritten statement, and even the phone number if you want to get to the bottom of it yourself. 
 

The person administering the polygraph was Jeremiah hanafin. Is there a problem there? It appears he’s qualified.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

As I said, that could have all been entered into the record but republicans opposed it. They could have questioned the person who administered and all his data. Link

“Additionally, Banks and Katz noted, their request to have the polygraph examiner who administered Ford’s test testify at Thursday’s hearing, “which would have included providing the specific materials you are now requesting," was denied by the GOP.”


For the record, the polygraph included a written statement of the event, and two questions: was any part of it false, and was any part of it fabricated. She answered no, and through 3 different analysis was found that her statements were deemed “not indicative of deception.” 
There were no questions about cake. You can find the report, her handwritten statement, and even the phone number if you want to get to the bottom of it yourself. 
 

The person administering the polygraph was Jeremiah hanafin. Is there a problem there? It appears he’s qualified.

polygraphs are inadmissible as evidence.  HTH.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2021 at 8:00 AM, Sabertooth said:

 

On 3/16/2021 at 8:10 AM, Sabertooth said:

I think he's been surprisingly judicial. 

Hey Saber, I know we have had some terrific exchanges over the years, probably back in the SP so I am hesitant to post with you in here. I think it's naive to overlook the fact a Game Show host and Entertainment Director nobody wanted on the left pushed 3 Supreme Court Justices thru and from now until the end of time it's going to be a non stop assault to injure and maim. The circus when Kav was nominated and pushed thru was disgusting IMO, one of the lowest points in our judicial process and system to that point because we didn't know what was going to transpire after he became a Supreme Court Justice and I am mostly eluding to the pandemic and all the spin off BS from the major news networks which i care not to argue with you about. 

-"Surprisingly judicial" is not something most folks would post who kind of have it in for the SCJ. I want to commend you for acknowledging that on someone you must have real hatred for. 

You and I could not be more polar opposite in how we feel about this entire issue or situation and it would have been easy for me to not even post but I did want to say i was surprised you said this about Kavanaugh but then again i used to enjoy reading a lot of your posts so maybe I shouldn't be surprised. 

Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2021 at 6:53 PM, Snorkelson said:

Explain the reasoning of holding the garland nomination in limbo and ramming through barret in a month. 

GOP Senate  :clap: 

Let's see what the split Senate plus a 2% Primary Vote recipient who has final say now, let's see what they accomplish over the next several years in retaliation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

polygraphs are inadmissible as evidence.  HTH.

Yeah, and she took it privately so if she did not like the results she did not have to tell anyone she even took the tesf or perhaps did it multiple times.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Yeah, and she took it privately so if she did not like the results she did not have to tell anyone she even took the tesf or perhaps did it multiple times.  

Yep.  we'll never know because there was no investigation into how that polygraph was taken.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

It doesn't matter. They're inadmissible for a reason.

 

And why would she even take a polygraph test one month before the 'leak" unless Ford planned the leak. The more I look back at this the more I know Ford planned it and was involved in the 'leak'. 

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

She passed a polygraph, he refused to take one. She supported an fbi investigation, he dodged the question of whether he supported an investigation. Republicans then questioned the validity of the person administering her polygraph, democrats wanted to question him and the republicans didn’t allow that or the data he procured to be put into record. 
 

 

And again, this isn’t a re-litigation of kavanaugh or looking into the allegations. It’s a request that the fbi’s handling of the case is looked at, and whether their actions were normal. 

She passed a polygraph she paid for(well actually somebody else paid for). Do you think those companies stay in business by failing the people that come to them?

Lol. This was part of the sham and it was so obvious.  It was only a two question polygraph. Instead of asking her actual questions about the incident they had her write a statement prior to the test. Then they asked her two broad questions. They didnt even specify in the questions that the written statement was the statement they were asking about. 

"Is any part of your statement false?"

"Did you make up any part of your statement?"

These are questions that were set up to be able to give answers that you believe are true. They were non specific for a reason. 

 

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

We know enough about the polygraph to know that only slanted democrats would think it meant anything. 

It is amazing that such an alledgedly impactful 35-year old event was never mentioned to anyone except until decades later after Kavanaugh was appointed to the second highest court in the land.  And then numerous changes in details from the number of people, to the house layout, to the year, and to the approximate location from what she told her therapist to later on.  But yet we are supposed to absolutely trust her memory?  Her story was extremely vague and yet she still could not keep it straight.  Then you have an ex-boyfriend of 6 years whom she never mentioned Kavanaugh and says Ford has knowledge of and provided assistance to a colleague in passing a polygraph.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really don't want to get into this too much, but it is odd how we need to discount Ford's memory of things that happened 35 years ago, yet Kavanaugh and his recollection of what meant what is taken at face value (devil's triangle, renate alumnus, boofed, etc.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, the moops said:

Really don't want to get into this too much, but it is odd how we need to discount Ford's memory of things that happened 35 years ago, yet Kavanaugh and his recollection of what meant what is taken at face value (devil's triangle, renate alumnus, boofed, etc.)

Logical people believe that 35/40 year old memories - WITHOUT BACKUP EVIDENCE - are suspect at best.

One of the best words of advice I ever got was "Trust, but verify".  Ford never got past the "verify" part.  In fact, there was evidence AGAINST her allegations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Logical people believe that 35/40 year old memories - WITHOUT BACKUP EVIDENCE - are suspect at best.

One of the best words of advice I ever got was "Trust, but verify".  Ford never got past the "verify" part.  In fact, there was evidence AGAINST her allegations.

My only point was you can't out of one side of your mouth yell that 35 year old memories are faulty and can't be trusted while out of the other side believe Kavanaugh's descrption of various things from the same time frame

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the moops said:

Really don't want to get into this too much, but it is odd how we need to discount Ford's memory of things that happened 35 years ago, yet Kavanaugh and his recollection of what meant what is taken at face value (devil's triangle, renate alumnus, boofed, etc.)

We dont need to trust his recollection. His recollection is completely meaningless. 

Nobody cares what devils triangle meant. It could have meant what he said. It could have meant putting red colored maple syrup on womens nether regions while wakeboarding in bermuda. t literally means nothing. 

 

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the moops said:

My only point was you can't out of one side of your mouth yell that 35 year old memories are faulty and can't be trusted while out of the other side believe Kavanaugh's descrption of various things from the same time frame

Kavanaugh wasn't the one accusing someone of rape 40 years after the fact.  :shrug:

His memories are irrelevent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2021 at 9:28 AM, BladeRunner said:

Logical people believe that 35/40 year old memories - WITHOUT BACKUP EVIDENCE - are suspect at best.

One of the best words of advice I ever got was "Trust, but verify".  Ford never got past the "verify" part.  In fact, there was evidence AGAINST her allegations.

Seems like the point of the requested investigation is to see if Ford's opportunity to verify this via the FBI's check was denied her by the way the investigation was conducted.   I'd think that if I was Kavanaugh I'd prefer that this be investigated and answered with the FBI did everything that was appropriate under the circumstances/  Because this was so long ago I'm not sure if that isn't a reasonable result to expect.  At least in the amount of time available.  But since Ford seemed so credible to so many I think it is reasonable to believe that she believed the allegations even if one doubts that Kavanaugh is guilty.  I think that should have been enough "verification" to trigger a deeper look.  Did that deeper look actually happen?  Lets find out before we face the situation again (which seems likely in the current climate).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2021 at 10:26 AM, shadrap said:

polygraph with who doing the polygraph might I ask.  Also what were the questions & answers?  Can you bake a cake?  No-

polygraph passed.  How can the FBI conduct an investigation?

Where were you at?

a house.

where was the house?

somewhere.

who were you with?

girlfriend.

How come girlfriend doesn't remember this.

I don't know.

When did this happen?

Not sure of the date.

What year did this happen.

Don't know.

You said you were not driving to party so how did you get there.

Don't know.

How did you get home.

Don't know.

give me a break.

"Did Brett Kavanaugh push you into a room and pin you down against your will?"  Yes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2021 at 10:05 AM, parasaurolophus said:

We dont need to trust his recollection. His recollection is completely meaningless. 

Nobody cares what devils triangle meant. It could have meant what he said. It could have meant putting red colored maple syrup on womens nether regions while wakeboarding in bermuda. t literally means nothing. 

 

No.  Everyone knows what it means, including Brett.  And he lied about it under oath.  Because he knew it would reflect poorly on his character.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Seems like the point of the requested investigation is to see if Ford's opportunity to verify this via the FBI's check was denied her by the way the investigation was conducted.   I'd think that if I was Kavanaugh I'd prefer that this be investigated and answered with the FBI did everything that was appropriate under the circumstances/  Because this was so long ago I'm not sure if that isn't a reasonable result to expect.  At least in the amount of time available.  But since Ford seemed so credible to so many I think it is reasonable to believe that she believed the allegations even if one doubts that Kavanaugh is guilty.  I think that should have been enough "verification" to trigger a deeper look.  Did that deeper look actually happen?  Lets find out before we face the situation again (which seems likely in the current climate).

The FBI interviewed nine people including the two Kavanaugh's friends and the one Ford's friend who were present according to Ford at this alleged party.  All of them deny knowledge of any such party.  Who else are they supposed to interview?  There is no one else that has any knowledge of that night and all the ones who could have, all support Kavanaugh's story and contradict Ford's.  There is zero evidence which substantiates there ever was such a party.  There is nothing left to investigate.  

Edited by jon_mx
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I ever come into a thread and post something like "But so-and-so passed a polygraph so you know they're telling the truth," please call the police.  This will be my secret code letting people know that I've been kidnapped and need help, because I would never post something like that if I was safe.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The FBI interviewed nine people including the two Kavanaugh's friends and the one Ford's friend who were present according to Ford at this alleged party.  All of them deny knowledge of any such party.  Who else are they supposed to interview?  There is no one else that has any knowledge of that night and all the ones who could have, all support Kavanaugh's story and contradict Ford's.  There is zero evidence which substantiates there ever was such a party.  There is nothing left to investigate.  

They did not say there never was such a party.  they said they could not remember being at such a party.  I couldn't tell you every high school party I went to save your life.  That is not contradictory evidence.  It is not helpful to Ford either.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Also, "the motorist should have just consented to having their vehicle searched -- if they didn't have anything to hide, what's the harm in letting the officer look around a bit?"

not a great example.  where a case is he said vs she said because there is no other meaningful evidence, a polygraph could be useful.  The test is not without flaws, admittedly.  But I am not at all surprised Brett wanted no part of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The FBI interviewed nine people including the two Kavanaugh's friends and the one Ford's friend who were present according to Ford at this alleged party.  All of them deny knowledge of any such party.  Who else are they supposed to interview?  There is no one else that has any knowledge of that night and all the ones who could have, all support Kavanaugh's story and contradict Ford's.  There is zero evidence which substantiates there ever was such a party.  There is nothing left to investigate.  

So the investigation of the investigation will be short and quick.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...