Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

Kavanaugh Hearings

OneSeventeen

By OneSeventeen
in Off-Topic General

 Share

Recommended Posts

Gurn Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Gurn

Posted
Posted

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trump-mocks-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-ford-at-rally-‘i-had-one-beer’/ar-BBNRe3f?ocid=spartandhp

President Donald Trump mocked Christine Blasey Ford at a rally on Tuesday, in his most direct attack yet on the woman who accused his Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault.

Trump made fun of Ford’s inability to provide certain details about the night she said Kavanaugh tried to rape her.

“I had one beer!” he said, impersonating Ford at his Mississippi rally. “How did you get home? I don’t remember. How did you get there? I don’t remember. Where is the place? I don’t remember. How many years ago was it? I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know!”

“Upstairs, downstairs where was it? I don’t know,” he said.

“And a man’s life is in tatters,” Trump continued. “His wife is shattered.”

Trump also went after Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti, whose new client Julie Swetnick lobbed explosive of unsubstantiated claims against Kavanaugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Warhippy Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Warhippy

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, gurn said:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trump-mocks-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-ford-at-rally-‘i-had-one-beer’/ar-BBNRe3f?ocid=spartandhp

President Donald Trump mocked Christine Blasey Ford at a rally on Tuesday, in his most direct attack yet on the woman who accused his Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault.

Trump made fun of Ford’s inability to provide certain details about the night she said Kavanaugh tried to rape her.

“I had one beer!” he said, impersonating Ford at his Mississippi rally. “How did you get home? I don’t remember. How did you get there? I don’t remember. Where is the place? I don’t remember. How many years ago was it? I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know!”

“Upstairs, downstairs where was it? I don’t know,” he said.

“And a man’s life is in tatters,” Trump continued. “His wife is shattered.”

Trump also went after Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti, whose new client Julie Swetnick lobbed explosive of unsubstantiated claims against Kavanaugh.

A real man....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VanGnome Canucks Regular

VanGnome

Posted
Posted
Quote

Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm

FBI report on Kavanaugh could be finished tomorrow

'The Story' exclusive: Woman who worked on Kavanaugh investigations provides insight into the background checks.

In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman, Monica McLean, had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.

He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a "very small," 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.

Ford "never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit," the former boyfriend wrote.

However, on Thursday, Ford testified, "I was hoping to avoid getting on an airplane. But I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends and get on the plane." She also acknowledged regularly -- and, in her words, "unfortunately" -- traveling on planes for work and hobbies.

And Ford explicitly told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday that she had a second front door installed in her home because of "anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms" that she purportedly suffered in the wake of Kavanaugh's alleged attack at a house party in the 1980s -- "more especially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing."

In a pointed, no-holds-barred letter Tuesday evening that referenced the ex-boyfriend's declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded that attorneys for Ford turn over her therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday's dramatic Senate hearing.

"Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination," Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote.

Under questioning from experienced sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell last week,Ford said that she had "never" had "any discussions with anyone ... on how to take a polygraph" or "given any tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test." She repeatedly said the process of taking her own polygraph in August was stressful and uncomfortable, although she testified she could not remember if she took the test on the same day as her grandmother's funeral, or the next day.

But in his declaration, the ex-boyfriend wrote that, "I witnessed Dr. Ford help [Monica L.] McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam" and that Ford had "explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped [her] become familiar and less nervous about the exam," using her background in psychology. (McLean's name appeared on a list of Ford's former high school classmates who signed a letter of support for Ford last month).

Mitchell, in a report Sunday, said Ford's case was even weaker than the typical "He said, she said" situation and pointed out numerous discrepencies in her version of events that have emerged in the past several weeks, concerning everything from how many people were at the purported party to when it occurred and how she found her way home. Mitchell also noted that none of the witnesses Ford identified as having attended the party could back up her version of events.

Some of the apparent inconsistencies, Grassley wrote, could possibly be addressed if Ford's legal team turned over all video or audio recordings produced during her own polygraph examination. Ford passed that polygraph, and in a handwritten statement she wrote prior to the test, she indicated "there were 4 boys and a couple of girls" at the gathering.

FORD'S POLYGRAPH RESULTS SHOW KEY INCONSISTENCY -- HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE AT THE PARTY?

However, in Ford's letter to Feinstein in July, she gave a different tally, writing instead that the party "included me and 4 others." Under oath on Thursday, Ford for the first time mentioned that a fourth boy was at the party, but that she could not remember his name.

Grassley also demanded Ford's attorneys hand over notes from her 2012 therapy sessions in which she claimed to have discussed her alleged sexual assault decades ago. The senator said it was "not justified" any longer for Ford to cite privacy and medical privilege given that she has relied on them extensively as a kind of corroborating evidence to implicate Kavanaugh.

On Thursday, Ford claimed she could not say definitively whether she had shared those notes with The Washington Post approximately two months ago, as opposed to describing them abstractly.  The Post wrote that it had reviewed a "portion" of Ford's notes.

Additionally, Grassley requested copies of communications between Ford and the media describing her allegations, saying that the legal team's failure to provide Ford's full correspondence with The Washington Post suggested a "lack of candor."

In a separate letter to Democratic Sen. Chris Coons, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, Grassley wrote, "The accuser freely admits to having no evidence whatsoever that Judge Kavanaugh even attended this party. … We’ve reached a new level of absurdity with this allegation."

The scathing letters come as Fox News has learned from a source that the FBI may wrap up its investigation into misconduct accusations against Kavanaugh as soon as late Wednesday, potentially clearing the way for a final Senate vote on his confirmation within days.

If the FBI's report is indeed delivered to the White House on Wednesday, Fox News expects a vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation could come as soon as Saturday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., must first satisfy a number of procedural and parliamentary hurdles before a vote can be held, including filing a cloture petition, which must remain pending for a full day, in order to formally end debate on Kavanaugh's nomination. McConnell has vowed to hold a vote by the end of the week.

WATCH: GRAHAM VOWS TO PROBE WHY FORD CLAIMED IGNORANCE ABOUT GOP OFFER TO TESTIFY IN CALIFORNIA

The uncorroborated sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh have faltered in recent days, as the credibility of his three most prominent accusers -- Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick -- has come under question. Democrats increasingly have focused their arguments on Kavanaugh's temperament during Thursday's hearing, as well as whether he lied under oath about references in his high school yearbook.

Kavanaugh acknowleged sometimes having "too many" beers in high school and college, but some Democrats have suggested he lied by not going further and admitting that he had "blacked out." None of Kavanaugh's classmates has said he blacked out, although some have come forward to suggest it's likely that he did at some point.

For his part, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Monday called out what he said were transparent stall tactics in a fiery floor speech.

"If you listen carefully, Mr. President, you can practically hear the sounds of the Democrats moving the goalposts," McConnell said. He added later: "Their goalposts keep shifting. But their goal hasn't moved an inch. Not an inch."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VanGnome Canucks Regular

VanGnome

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

A False News article where the "boyfriend's" name is redacted. What evidence!

Yet contains incredibly verifiable items that can be easily checked by the FBI. It's easy for left leaning individuals to cite "fake news" when it's convenient to support their narrative. However, the credibility of not just Ford but all three accusers is falling increasingly, as evidenced by Democrats on the judiciary committee pivoting to instead focus on Kavanaugh and how he defended himself.

It's hard to consider this potential revelation as dismissable when mainstream media took Kavanaugh to the gallows for "reports that he may, or may not have thrown ice on a patron in a bar". Lol, is that really the best the left can come up with?

But sure, fake news. Anything to keep the metoo movement going. I don't particularly care if Kavanaugh actually gets the job or not, I think he's lacking in as much credibility as Ford is, I think this whole damn thing is silly and nothing but a politicized clown show. What I do care about are the greater implications within society that situations like this set or move the goal posts for when it comes to precedent.

Edited by VanGnome
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chicken. Canucks Second-Line

Chicken.

Posted
Posted

The redacted name is the focus and not the claims he made in a letter apparantely under oath.. I guess we’ll see them tested

 

Seems obvious why the committee took his name and location out for privacy reasons but knowing these days it will leak out sooner or later

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RUPERTKBD Canucks Hall-of-Famer

RUPERTKBD

Posted
Posted

Interesting that Faux News is the only major outlet pursuing this "story"....

 

....of course, the ex-boyfriend's story has already been refuted by the "friend:

Quote

 

On Wednesday, McClean put out a brief statement denying the claim.

“I have NEVER had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime,” McClean said.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-fords-friend-denies-being-helped-on-polygraph-fires-back-at-new-claims

 

Lost in this attempted smokescreen by Faux (and by certain CDC posters) is the fact that the sexual assault charge is virtually unproveble, so this whole "gotcha" moment is a nothingburger. The real story is the fact that the guy up for a seat on the supreme court certainly did lie and no amount of deflection is going to change that fact.

 

But by all means, carry on with the "neither has any credibility" mantra, if it makes you feel like you know something the rest of the world doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Warhippy Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Warhippy

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, VanGnome said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm

Oh gee FOX News found someone they refuse to name who spoke up and out against Dr Ford.

 

An Ex boyfriend no less

 

But...wait.  How long was she married again?  Since 2002, after dating for 4 years.  An ex boyfriend who is unnamed, directly contradicting her citing a time period before she took the polygraph and before the sessions with her therapist.

 

Hmmm

 

Now I am not saying FOX news is not credible, but maybe just maybe they're not credible at all

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Warhippy Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Warhippy

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, VanGnome said:

Yet contains incredibly verifiable items that can be easily checked by the FBI. It's easy for left leaning individuals to cite "fake news" when it's convenient to support their narrative. However, the credibility of not just Ford but all three accusers is falling increasingly, as evidenced by Democrats on the judiciary committee pivoting to instead focus on Kavanaugh and how he defended himself.

It's hard to consider this potential revelation as dismissable when mainstream media took Kavanaugh to the gallows for "reports that he may, or may not have thrown ice on a patron in a bar". Lol, is that really the best the left can come up with?

But sure, fake news. Anything to keep the metoo movement going. I don't particularly care if Kavanaugh actually gets the job or not, I think he's lacking in as much credibility as Ford is, I think this whole damn thing is silly and nothing but a politicized clown show. What I do care about are the greater implications within society that situations like this set or move the goal posts for when it comes to precedent.

You mean information that is already out there and easy to find online but somehow someway was not mentioned ONCE before she took the stand right?

 

Just curious.  Who is the attention seeker again?  Obviously it's her right.  I mean she only fought to keep her identity secret but OBVIOUSLY wants attention.  Not the magical ex boyfriend who seems to somehow miss the marriage/engagement as well as her date of polygraph and therapy notes.

 

Why do their timelines not meet up?  He says time X, but the reports indicate time Y

 

But hey, Fox news right, super credible.  They've only doctored speeches, lied about results and of course mocked the families of dead vets to protect their president.

 

Why not believe them too.  Kill off that vile MeToo movement you seem to not approve of or appreciate

 

Edit** My favorite part is how the boyfriends name is redacted but the friends isn't.  Way to go FOX, way to go 

 

 

Edited by Warhippy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toews Canucks Franchise Player

Toews

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, VanGnome said:

Yet contains incredibly verifiable items that can be easily checked by the FBI.

And the FBI hasn't verified it. 

Quote

It's easy for left leaning individuals to cite "fake news" when it's convenient to support their narrative.

Actually it's the right that has been decrying the use of "anonymous sources" but only when it is convenient.

Quote

However, the credibility of not just Ford but all three accusers is falling increasingly, as evidenced by Democrats on the judiciary committee pivoting to instead focus on Kavanaugh and how he defended himself.

This is an idiotic argument. People can focus on more than one thing. Considering Dr. Ford's allegations are still unconfirmed accusations, the way Kavanaugh defends himself is crucial in determining credibility and his fitness for the job. He lied to the Senate and engaged in partisan attacks.

 

I expect the Democratic Senators took exception to those attacks on their character, which you describe as "pivoting". 

Quote

It's hard to consider this potential revelation as dismissable when mainstream media took Kavanaugh to the gallows for "reports that he may, or may not have thrown ice on a patron in a bar". Lol, is that really the best the left can come up with?

Is this letter the best the right can come up with?

 

An ex who's too cowardly to put his name on it? 

Quote

But sure, fake news. Anything to keep the metoo movement going. I don't particularly care if Kavanaugh actually gets the job or not, I think he's lacking in as much credibility as Ford is, I think this whole damn thing is silly and nothing but a politicized clown show. What I do care about are the greater implications within society that situations like this set or move the goal posts for when it comes to precedent.

Disagree entirely. Ford has significantly more credibility as she hasn't been demonstrated to be misrepresenting the statements made by others, hasn't been demonstrated to be lying to the Senate and hasn't engaged in partisan attacks on the people that refuse to believe her even though she may very well be justified in doing so.

Edited by Toews
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VanGnome Canucks Regular

VanGnome

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

You mean information that is already out there and easy to find online but somehow someway was not mentioned ONCE before she took the stand right?

 

Just curious.  Who is the attention seeker again?  Obviously it's her right.  I mean she only fought to keep her identity secret but OBVIOUSLY wants attention.  Not the magical ex boyfriend who seems to somehow miss the marriage/engagement as well as her date of polygraph and therapy notes.

 

Why do their timelines not meet up?  He says time X, but the reports indicate time Y

 

But hey, Fox news right, super credible.  They've only doctored speeches, lied about results and of course mocked the families of dead vets to protect their president.

 

Why not believe them too.  Kill off that vile MeToo movement you seem to not approve of or appreciate

 

 

I'm not saying Fox news is more credible than other news outlets, only that they are adding to the discussion. A discussion that seems completely devoid of any kind of critical thinking or healthy skepticism from both sides. There's a BIG difference between sincerity and credibility. Rachel Mitchell (the prosecutor hired to question Ford) cut Fords credibility to shreds, obviously that was not evident during the live hearings due to the shenanigans played by the senate committee on both sides of the issue, but if you read Mitchell's scathing report it shows Ford to not be credible at all.

 

That imo is enough to warrant the same level of credibility at minimum be afforded this potential revelation. The fact that this is all playing out publicly is cause for severe skepticism on all accounts on all sides of the issue, however it seems to have a narrative of "believe Ford because she's a woman and Kavanaugh is obviously guilty because he's a white male. And a Republican nominee for Supreme Court Justice."

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Warhippy Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Warhippy

Posted
Posted

See when people who claim to be centrists or "not on the right" make these claims that are so EASILY picked apart and then latch on to them like this weasel Grassley it is beyond laughable.  Because they're usually the same people who support mocking the families of dead soldiers, using dead soldiers to push racist narratives, deride sexual assault survivors and cheer a president who mocks everyone, lies about everything and has allegations from almost 2 dozen women against him.

 

Now I'm not saying that people like that are essential Offal, I am just saying that these people are simply [Redacted} of human [Redacted] that should go [Reacted] in a chemical fire after being [redacted] so they can't conceive children

 

But that's just me :P

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VanGnome Canucks Regular

VanGnome

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

See when people who claim to be centrists or "not on the right" make these claims that are so EASILY picked apart and then latch on to them like this weasel Grassley it is beyond laughable.  Because they're usually the same people who support mocking the families of dead soldiers, using dead soldiers to push racist narratives, deride sexual assault survivors and cheer a president who mocks everyone, lies about everything and has allegations from almost 2 dozen women against him.

 

Now I'm not saying that people like that are essential Offal, I am just saying that these people are simply [Redacted} of human [Redacted] that should go [Reacted] in a chemical fire after being [redacted] so they can't conceive children

 

But that's just me :P

I am center right. I don't blindly believe any side or any testimony. I expect relevant and competent cross examination to break down the obvious veils that EVERYONE puts up when their stories are being validated.

I do not agree with the sentiment that "people on the right" are "usually the same people who support mocking the families of dead soldiers, using dead soldiers to push racist narratives, deride sexual assault survivors and cheer a president who mocks everyone, lies about everything and has allegations from almost 2 dozen women against him."

Please, tell us how you really feel. There is WAY too much broad sweeping generalization in that statement and I expect better from you on that as I consider you to not be a raving lunatic.

I suspect that if you look back at my body of work, so to speak as it pertains to controversial issues and my stances on them, you'll see my arguments are remarkably consistent. I have yet in this ongoing discussion to be "EASILY picked a part" when no one is actually engaging me in the concepts I am trying to discuss, and instead engaging in weak handed attempts to discredit my position by attempting to strengthen theirs which on the surface appears to be the righteous and virtuous of the sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...