Obstructionism: the ultimate trump card?

@KingReef,

KingReef wrote:

Avenatti’s past is littered with lawsuits, jilted business partners and bankruptcy filings. People who have worked with the lawyer described him to TheDCNF as ruthless, greedy and unbothered by ethical questions.

So you think he’s qualified to be president do you?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

...ruthless, greedy and unbothered by ethical questions.

I lost you on "ethical questions." Exactly what has he done that is unethical?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote Brandon:

Quote:

I didn't say that the accuser has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his/her accusation is true. I am saying that if person A accuses person B of a crime and has zero evidence of any kind...

Stop right there. You still don't get it. The witness or victim of a crime does not have to produce evidence. Their report is evidence. Uncovering further evidence is the police's job. Only here the Republicans are making sure the police, (in this case the FBI), does not investigate to find evidence because, you know, the witness/victim has no "evidence". Which no witness/victim has to have , aside from their report.

What's the point of having police or FBI if the victim has to produce the evidence themselves?

PS: It is not the FBI's job to make Kavanaugh's appointment easier. It is to make sure he is fit for the job. In your rush to push Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court, you have made up nonexistent "requirements" for witness/victims, and are pretending they justify ignoring past rape allegations. Especially since Avenatti has a third victim/witness coming forward.

Incidentally, even if the victim has a long list of witnesses, the Republicans have fixed it so that those witnesses can not be heard during the hearing.

Also, there is no statute of limitations in Maryland for what Kavanaugh is being accused of, and the Maryland police have said that if they receive a complaint, (which they have not so far), they will investigate and if the evidence turns up will prosecute. So Kavanaugh's rush job into confirmation can backfire if the Maryland police find evidence and then the Senate has to impeach him.

1 Reply

Kavanaugh is gettingin deeper and deeper. He should have quit while he had a chance. The witnesses are lining up like a parade.

1 Reply

@coluber2001,

It's a big bunch of nothing again. A lot of made up stuff. And MAN! That woman is one boring woman! I think he washing machine story was leaking and blowing up for way too long.

2 Replies

@KingReef,

Well, let's hope Kavanaugh has a whole drawerful of calendars and diaries.

0 Replies

@KingReef,

How do you know the stuff is made up unless the FBI investigates. Oh, that's right, the Republicans have fixed it so that the FBI will not investigate. What are they hiding about Kavanaugh?

Incidentally, those 65 women vouching for Kavanaugh certainly appeared suddenly once the accusation was made. It's almost as if the Republicans knew all about it before and had Kavanaugh's female supporters lined up to be ready to go if the story ever broke.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Sixty five women swearing that Kavanaugh didn't try to rape them. Well, that's something.

Avenatti's client won't be allowed to testify before the senate hearing committee, but once the testimony hits the newspapers in the next 2 days, that'll be a real shitstorm.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

How do you know the stuff is made up unless the FBI investigates.

Because this is apparent to me that the Democrats don't care about sexual misconduct. This isn't about sexual misconduct. This is about revenge for what happened to Merrick Garland. That is why the Democrats cried and cried about "ALLLLLL" the documents on Kavanaugh, and held the sexual misconduct claim all the while. "What are they trying to hide?" That was their line, sneakiness and all. Feinstein already had something too,sour puss didn't let it go though!

So it's not about sexual misconduct. And if they are willing to lie about having "ALLL" the papers on Kavanaugh themselves, they are willing to bear false witness and ruin the life of an innocent man. Feinstein is an old, old woman who is white knuckling her fingers on staying in office, apparently until the day she dies. If she can upset the Supreme Court nominee, I think she may think that she can impress the new Democrats who are calling for her to lose the leadership role in a projected Democrat majority in the Senate.

Quote:

Oh, that's right, the Republicans have fixed it so that the FBI will not investigate. What are they hiding about Kavanaugh?

Do you think I run the FBI? I hope not. All I got on that is the FBI doesn't do that kind of investigation. Why doesn't Christine Ford file a report with the Maryland police? There is apparently no statute of limitations for that kind of crime in Maryland. I think it is because she knows it is illegal to file a false police report. She is lying. And I'm willing to come out and say it.

Quote:

Incidentally, those 65 women vouching for Kavanaugh certainly appeared suddenly once the accusation was made. It's almost as if the Republicans knew all about it before and had Kavanaugh's female supporters lined up to be ready to go if the story ever broke.

From what I heard some of them say, many of them didn't want to be a part of the media circus. I think that is understandable.

Does anything I said seem reasonable? Because I know on these message boards some people argue to argue. I'm hardly ever in that sort of mood. So even if you don't agree with me, you might be able to accept that I'm not being unfair to you or to my convictions.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Re read what I wrote.

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

There's always some sort of trigger for people. For you, it seems to be sexuality. For the most part, you feel people have a choice. And they choose a path that is detrimental to their well being.

Most people feel they don't have a choice. Or a voice. It gets buried in the multitude of other voices. Some say they deserve what they get. Others have their choices shoved upon them.

I think it's a combination of both. Life gets thrust upon you and you have to deal the best you can. Some support you, others condemn you. Mostly, it really doesn't matter what others think, you do what's right for you.

And yes, you ARE the perfect example to deny victimization. Own it.

I used to deny that pro-life people are victims of having their democratic right obstructed to fight for the rights of the unborn. Many people approached me about why they were against abortion, most if not all women. Why were these women upset regarding abortion? Maybe because they feel powerless to do anything about it. Does that address what you're talking about with victimization, or do you consider that a different kind of victimization?

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Quote livinglava:

Quote:
Her story is being used as political ammunition in a partisan war against abortion reform.
Any room in your mental universe for the possibility that her story is true? Nah, you have your mind on Great Principles, you can't be bothered with what is true or not.

There is no conflict between her story being true and it being used as political ammunition. It can be both. In fact, it works better as ammunition if it is true.

What assures me that is it political ammunition is that I just don't believe it would have become a public issue if Kavanaugh hadn't been nominated as supreme court justice. In fact, I don't think she would have raised the issue on her own at all. I think people researched his past and approached many people to find potential ammunition to use against him, and she just took the bait to sell her story for whatever reason.

Maybe she's just pro-choice and sees herself as standing up for women by blocking his confirmation. Maybe she got offered some money. Maybe both.

What no one seems to think about is that when you take someone who was sexually objectified, harassed, molested, or whatever and you make use of their story for political gain, that is a form of exploitation. You are also intimidating people out of accepting nominations for positions where they know they will be subject to scrutiny. Do you want everyone who got drunk and hit on someone at a party to fear their sexual history being aired because they fail to conform to the pro-choice political stance? Do you want political views to be driven by fear and shame?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote livinglava:

Quote:

There is no conflict between her story being true and it being used as political ammunition. It can be both. In fact, it works better as ammunition if it is true.

So you are willing to concede that Prof Ford's account of Kavanaugh and an accomplice holding Ford down, pinning her arms and muffling her mouth while they attempted to rape her is very possibly true, but you want it dismissed because it's "political ammunition" against Kavanaugh's attainment of his professional goals.

Like, sorry he almost succeeded in raping you lady, but see here, this Kavanaugh guy has a Supreme Court appointment lined up and you're just going to have to shut up and get out of his way. And we're having your seat wiped down after you leave, because you're not a person, you're a piece of political ammunition. Ugh.

Misogyny is one of the pillars of the Republican Party.

0 Replies

Jesus wept--can we lose that goddamned red text? It's annoying and hard to read. Did you study at the feet of coldjoint?

1 Reply

@KingReef,

Quote:

Why doesn't Christine Ford file a report with the Maryland police? There is apparently no statute of limitations for that kind of crime in Maryland.

The statute of limitations has long run out on the Ford case because it is a misdemeanor in Maryland. However, Avenatti claims that he well may file charges against Kavanaugh on behalf of his client. I still wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh withdraws for some dubious reason just to save himself further troubles.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

No. Politics is about electing people with ethics and good morals. Whether Kavanaugh is a sexual predator or not is the question that must be answered before he is elected to the Supreme Court as a judge. An FBI investigation is warranted.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote Setanta:

Quote:

Jesus wept--can we lose that goddamned red text? It's annoying and hard to read. Did you study at the feet of coldjoint?

I'll go back to a darker red. Since I sometimes quote two people in a post, I like a color differentiation to go along with a different speaker to prevent confusion.

Also, coldjoint stylistically copied me, not the other way around. More proof that the pupil doesn't always equal the teacher.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

I'll go back to a darker red. Since I sometimes quote two people in a post, I like a color differentiation to go along with a different speaker to prevent confusion.

The normal quote box attributes the name of the person who you are quoting.

Like my quote from your post here. See where it says "Blickers wrote:"?

0 Replies

@coluber2001,

Avenatti is a well known liar. So again, I don't get inspired with confidence just because Avenatti said stuff. He has a history of saying stuff. He lied.

About the statute of Limitations, I'm being bombarded by two stories.

However,
In Maryland, there is no statute of limitations for many crimes, including some misdemeanors. The general limitations period for misdemeanors not punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary is one year.May 4, 2016

Scott R. Scherr
5.0 stars 15 reviews
Criminal Defense Attorney | Lutherville, MD
Posted on Mar 16, 2017
"To my knowledge, there is no statute of limitations for assault in criminal cases in Maryland. However, there is a three year statute of limitations to sue civilly for battery and a one year statute of limitations to sue civilly for assault."

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-is-the-statue-of-limitations-for-battery-in-m-2965457.html

1 Reply

@KingReef,

Quote KingReef:

Quote:

Avenatti is a well known liar. So again, I don't get inspired with confidence just because Avenatti said stuff. He has a history of saying stuff.

Yeah, and so far all the stuff Avenatti said has come true in the Trump-Stormy Daniels case. Avenatti said at the beginning the smartest thing Trump could do would be to let Stormy Daniels tell her story and not to sue her for it. Cohen and Trump sneered and sued Stormy for $20 Million dollars for breach of contract. Directly as a result of that suit which Avenatti warned them not to file, Trump is in more immediate trouble over the Stormy Daniels case and its ramifications than he is over the Russia scandal.

Directly because of that $20 Million dollar lawsuit Robert Mueller has access to all of Cohen's records dealing with Trump.

Directly as a result of that $20 Million lawsuit Trump is going to be forced to be deposed by Avenatti with criminal penalties if he doesn't answer truthfully to the questions Avenatti asks him.

Directly because of that $20 Million lawsuit Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer/fixer for many years, has turned evidence for Mueller against Trump.

Avenatti is such a bad lawyer that, as opposing counsel, he publicly gave Trump much better legal advice than Trump's legal brain trust could do. And Avenatti's hitting a home run for his own client as well. Yes, by all means tell us all about how Avenatti doesn't know what he's doing, lol.

1 Reply

Obstructionism: the ultimate trump card?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know