In today’s New York Times, there’s an incredible piece of journalism from Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, the authors of the forthcoming book The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation. The article’s focus is on Deborah Ramirez, a undergraduate classmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s at Yale. Ramirez, as you may recall, made a claim prior to Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing, stating that, during a party in 1983, a drunken Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her, thrusting his penis toward her face. This particular accusation didn’t get much traction in the media at the time, as people seemed to be more captivated by the accusation made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford that Kavanaugh had attempted to rape her when they were both in high school. [Ford was 15 at the time, and Kavanaugh was 17.] Well, Pogrebin and Kelly have been spent the past several months doggedly investigating the claim made by Deborah Ramirez, and, having now interviewed a number of sources, they’ve found it to be highly credible. I’d encourage you to read the entire article, but here are some of the highlights.
…During the winter of her freshman year, a drunken dormitory party unsettled her deeply. She and some classmates had been drinking heavily when, she says, a freshman named Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at her, prompting her to swat it away and inadvertently touch it. Some of the onlookers, who had been passing around a fake penis earlier in the evening, laughed.
…We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez’s allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)
…Ms. Ramirez’s legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau — in its supplemental background investigation — interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.
Two F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Ramirez, telling her that they found her “credible.” But the Republican-controlled Senate had imposed strict limits on the investigation. “‘We have to wait to get authorization to do anything else,’” Bill Pittard, one of Ms. Ramirez’s lawyers, recalled the agents saying. “It was almost a little apologetic”…
I know we’ve got our collective hands full right at the moment, as there are already several ongoing Congressional investigations in response to the rampant criminality of the Trump administration, but one would think that we’d eventually want to look into that decision by the White House and Republican controlled Senate to limit the investigation into Kavanaugh, instructing the FBI not to pursue the claims made by Ramirez, follow up on the calls offering corroborating evidence, etc. We need to know how that order came to be. We need to know who exactly was involved in making the decision to have the FBI stand down. And, while we’re at it, we should probably also investigate Kavanaugh’s repeated lies under oath, the mystery surrounding how his numerous debts came to be paid-off, and the circumstances surrounding Anthony Kennedy’s decision to abruptly leave the high court, leaving a seat open for Kavanaugh to move into… All of these are things that deserved to be looked into.
One last thing. This morning, after the news broke about the Ramirez story, Donald Trump sent out the following tweet…
Any other president in United States history, if confronted by credible evidence of a Supreme Court Justice having engaged in sexual assault, likely would have responded with a thoughtful statement, acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, and promising that they would be looked into.
Donald Trump, however, chose to publicly demand that the Department of Justice “come to (the) rescue” of the accused. No promise of an investigation. No sympathy for the victim. Just a demand that federal law enforcement agencies do the President’s bidding… This is not the America that my ancestors fought for. We are witnessing the birth of criminal dictatorship.
153 Comments
I agree with Kamala Harris that Kavanaugh should be impeached.
I also agree that he should be impeached. He isn’t going to be removed from office though because Republicans these days are ok with looking the other way in sexual assault cases.
From October 2018.
The Kavanaugh defense was not
“Yes, I drank too much in my last year of high school and first year of college, misbehaved in ways that embarrass me now, I am sincerely sorry, and have never done anything like it since.”
His defense was: It’s all lies, every word.
Slate had the better headline.
“New Reporting Claims Brett Kavanaugh Did Touch Yale Classmates With His Penis—Twice”
Read more:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-new-york-times.html
Do any of you really think it matters or that anything will happen?
Don’t you remember Clarence Thomas?
It might be time to stop worrying and learn to love the Trump.
Unless you think Biden is going to deliver a bright new future.
Max Stier is no slouch of a witness- he is a Rhodes Scholar, Stanford Law grad, fmr. Supreme Court Clerk, runs a bipartisan center for public service and is the star of Michael Lewis’ last book.
VIDEO: FBI’s Christopher Wray acknowledges to Kamala Harris that the Kavanaugh investigation was limited in scope on orders of the White House.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=35&v=3LUD0qQcEIo
He’s awful and he should be removed but this is a distraction. Defeat Trump. Take back Congress. That’s the only message that should be out there of any concern.
“Two people with first-hand knowledge confirm to NBC News that the FBI was notified of Stier’s claim that Kavanaugh allegedly thrust his penis into the hand of an unidentified female student.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-defends-brett-kavanaugh-after-sexual-misconduct-allegations-resurface-n1054581
Kavanaugh has a lifetime appointment. His position on the court is at least as important as Trump in terms of impact.
None of this surprises me BTW, nor will I be surprised when nothing comes of it.
But he confessed…
…he likes beer.
IMO opinion Kavanaugh disqualified himself for reasons not involving any alleged sexual assaults….
Is it true that Ramirez doesn’t recall if it was actually Kavanaugh? Is it true that Ramirez does not want to be interviewed? Is it true that NYT updated their story?
It seems flimsy, yet we are supposed to agree with Harris that “he lied”? WTF? Harris is a scumbag.
The @Newyorker can confirm this: Sen. Chris Coons personally alerted FBI Dir. Chris Wray of an additional eyewitness alleging Kavanaugh exposed himself to a 2nd woman at Yale- but the FBI never interviewed the witness, Max Stier, or investigated it.
Typical FF. A woman says she has been sexually assaulted and FF thinks a different woman calling for consequences is a “scumbag”. Um… no. Kavanaugh is the scumbag. We will put FF down as being in favor of sexual assault. I think that is a bad position to take.
I don’t like Kavanaugh as a Justice. He was a very poor choice.
However, it would appear that the NYT actually walked their story back already by saying Ramirez “does not even remember if was Bret”. (Do I have that right?)
You are a total loser Lynne. I am not pro sexual assault. I am anti sexual assault and also against false accusations. Harris is calling him a “liar” on apparently very flimsy evidence.
It’s more than Ramirez. And there are witnesses for that incident. There is another accused with a similar story and witnesses.
How us it FF that two reporters can spend months and produce a book about this stuff and you feel ok about discussing based on a set of assumptions and one factoid you heard?
It is not an either/ or proposition. I happen to think it is possible that Kavanaugh, Harris and Lynne might all be scumbags. The main difference being that Harris and Lynne have already established themselves as total scumbags already.
*dismissing
My new reading glasses literally arrived while I was trying to write that comment.
https://www.thecut.com/2019/09/kavanaugh-new-yale-allegations.html
Sorry I got it mixed up. Ramirez remembers; the second woman does not. There are witnesses in each case.
Jean,
I think you are right. I definitely would like to hear more. I am not ready to say “he lied” as Harris did. Because I am not ready to say “he lied” does not mean I am pro-sexual assault as Lying Lynne suggested.
I do think it would be very crazy if a central accuser of Kavanaugh, in the NYT piece, actually is saying “I don’t remember if was Bret”.
By all means, if there is evidence that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted someone then there should be consequences. I am extremely leary of simply believing the NYT because they already had to update and also because of the possible context of the alleged assault. This is not rape. This is potentially just a teen exposing himself as a prank at a drunken college party. In summary, I am in favor of more facts/ evidence coming out before supporting Harris when she says “he lied”.
I am pretty sure Ramirez said she was not sure. I am confused on it. Don’t have time to look into it more right now.
Aloha, probably makes more sense to impeach once the Dems control the Senate . We know how craven the republicans are to maintain power (witness EOS total capitulation to power politics over morality. If morality does not matter to these folks we can hardly expect an appeal to legality to matter). After the repugs are swept out next year, we can work to reestablish the rule of law.
“just a teen exposing himself” = sexual assault FF! Of course in your world, it is no big deal? I think it should be obvious who the scumbag is. The guy who is saying that having a penis thrust in your face is just ‘boys will be boys.” Way to keep supporting rape culture, FF!
The big takeaway here for me is that the FBI never really investigated Kavanaugh. I can only assume because the republicans didn’t want too much of an investigation. And guys like FF with their bs “what is the big deal? He just put his penis in her face, it isn’t like he raped her” support for sexual assault.
Lynne,
It’s just not that easy, Lynne. You are total scumbag for saying I am pro sexual assault. Such a loser Lynne! This allegedly happened 36 years ago. I am glad we are more sensitive to that kind of behavior but the standards were different then. You are wrong, the act of exposing yourself by itself does not constitute sexual assault because act do not occur in some sort of vacuum. The reaction someone has to having someone expose themselves to them changes how the act is defined. As far as I know the women did not file any charges. As far as I know Kavanaugh was not disciplined by the alleged act. If charges or complaints were filed at the time that would change everything. I am glad we are in a culture now where women feel more comfortable coming forward…Culture changes….We should not judge adults for their behavior as teens by the standards set forth by a new culture 36 years removed from an alleged act which was not documented. How is that not obvious?
Stop being a scumbag Lynne.
I will say I am open to hearing more about the alleged incidents. The stories are very weird. Does anybody know if there was a college drinking game which involved dildos and exposing yourself back then? How is that in one incident, allegedly, a third and fourth (?) person shoved Kavanaugh’s penis into a young ladies hand? How does one get a penis shoved into their hand by other people? It is just a weird thing to ever have happen…Even weirder if it happened “out of the blue” and was not reported/ documented…
https://www.apnews.com/aa50902a0f8a4178b2aa63cbc6dff965
Anonymous,
Based on my experience and conversations with others I suspect that 1/16 number is lower than the real number of teen girls first “sexual” experience being in the form of a rape, unfortunately. The problem is huge and some of us have known it was a huge problem for a long time. You wouldn’t believe all the people who literally laughed at me 15-20-25 years ago when I guessed that 1/5 girls were victims of molestation, rape, or sexual assault before they got out of college. Now, people are more aware and that is a good thing.
It looks like FF takes a narrower view of what defines sexual assault than Lynne.
Aloha FF, don’t know what world you live in but ” he act of exposing yourself by itself does not constitute sexual assault because act do not occur in some sort of vacuum.” is in fact an sexual assault. pulling your dick out in public to take a pee, is a sexual crime. You might want to modify your behavior if you don’t know what is a criminal act.
FF, it doesn’t matter if we were in a different time. The only way our being in a different time should matter is when we consider a statute of limitations on sexual assault or rape. We can acknowledge that women were discouraged from reporting such crimes and eliminate the statute of limitations. Women should not have to have TWO such criminals on the highest court of the land (and yes I am aware of Biden’s role there).
It was illegal even back then to do what Kavanaugh did. A crime being common does not excuse it.
Right now there’s a bill in the MI house to make drugging and raping one’s spouse a crime. Apparently when they made marital rape illegal in the 1990’s they made an exception if the spouse was unconscious???
The CDC has good numbers on sexual assault. They are derived from self-reports for obvious reasons to most.
I agree with FF that Kavanaugh should not have Been confirmed based on his comportment during inquiry. I also think ALl the sexual assault allegations should have been addressed and together are disqualifying. I’m confused about why FF, who seems to genuinely care about the prevalence of sexual assault thinks these ones matter less, especially when the perpetrator is in a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.
I live in the real world DD.
Everybody knows exposing yourself to go pee in public can result in criminal charges.
However, you are wrong that peeing in public= sexual assault. Others can even see you peeing and it is not necessarily assault. I have seen strangers peeing in public and it was not assault. I did not want to see them pee but it was still not assault. They did not ask me if they could go pee in my sight and it was still not assault. It is easy to win this argument DD: All you need to do is show me one example where someone is convicted of sexual assault wherein there is no victim. I will be waiting here, in the real world, for your example.
Kavanaugh for sure did it? Did I miss something? Did he for sure try to rape Ford too? Swetnick?
PS I actually don’t think is common for a third party to push a man’s penis into a woman’s hand. I have never heard of that act before. It is weird. I double-checked and it always described as other people pushing his penis into her hand. Not the other way around. Weird.
…And the person who supposedly had Kavanaugh’s penis pushed into her hand does not recall it…Do I have that right? It is a sincere question. Apparently we have more than a few experts on what Kavanaugh DID 36 years ago.
Hopefully Mayor Pete will get elected and pack the court.
I doubt he’ll nominate people like Mr. Kavanaugh.
The constitution is a living document!
I think at least we can say that about everyone running in the Dem primary. That is why I will vote for whoever wins it. Not one of them seems likely to appoint another sex offender to the court.
*alleged sex offender*
See how easy it is to not be a scumbag?
FF apparently has limited experiences with fraternities and their ilk. It’s reasonable to be incredulous about their activities. That doesn’t mean things like assisted sexual assault don’t happen when groups of men regularly get extremely intoxicated together. Reason isn’t in the room.
I don’t think anyone really thinks public nudity or peeing in public constitute sexual assault. I’ve spent a fair amount of time around casual naked people. I’ve also had many men and one woman expose themselves to me. They aren’t the same thing. I don’t want to live in a world where nudity is considered assault. I do want to live in a world where people feel safe from sexual violence.
Republicans interferes with the proper procedure in the investigation of accusations toward a Supreme Court nominee. We all witnessed their publically stated justification for doing so. The senate republicans and those who assisted them in supressing potentially damning information should be questioned publicly under oath on their involvement, and should be held accountable for improprieties.
The FBI should be ordered to conduct the thorough background investigation of Cavanaugh and if the accusations are determined to be true, he should be impeached. Moscow Mitch and the other GOP Senators who have been so complicit in this and other coverups show no signs of any integrity. The opposition party has to take control of the senate for there to be any action on all of this.
My point is that Republicans have to be removed from power. They appear to be completely compromised.
The irony is that Trump’s idiocy, more than any other factor, may serve to bring about a flip in control of Senate.
Anonymous
Posted September 16, 2019 at 5:47 pm | Permalink
It looks like FF takes a narrower view of what defines sexual assault than Lynne.
Maybe. I don’t see the point of examining my definition relative to Lynne’s definition though. Rather I hope my definition of “sexual assault” is closer to the actual legal definition…DD and Lynne are off base by leaving “harm or endangerment to an actual victim” out of the concept of sexual assault. It is not enough that there is a qualifying act. Harm to a victim would need to be established. That is what I meant when I said that an act of sexual assault does not occur in a vacuum.
You all should get over Kavanaugh so that you can focus on making accusations on the next nomination. But what will you do if she is Pro-Life?
@ iRobert,
Please don’t get their hopes up – they still haven’t recovered from the last “sure thing”.
FF we have writer. Kaw on what constitutes sexual assault. Peeing in public is not sexual assault (it’s a misdemeanor community standards offense like spitting in public). Self exposure is in most places. I’m sure there is some gray area. There always is, but there is no point in you trying to redefine the standards. What Kavanaugh supposedly did were all acts of criminal sexual assault. His friends could be prosecuted as well had all this come to light at the time.
*written law
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing
A guy at MIT trying to define sexual assault without asking sexual assault victims what they think.
In Michigan, there is no statute against public urination. It us usually charges under local ordinances where it’s a misdemeanor community standards offense. The state limits time served for public urination to 90 days max.
If the offense crosses some line then state prosecutors may charge it under state laws against public exposure or disorderly conduct. This is extremely rare. Prosecutorial discretion is applied. In no way is public urination treated the same as public exposure under normal circumstances.
Re-read.
I am not arguing that peeing in public is necessarily a sexual assault. DD said it. I said that there are cases where exposing yourself can result in a crime (sexual offense). It depends on the intent and context. Part of the context is how it is received. You are right to say there is a lot grey area. I am Mr. Grey area in this conversation. Lynne and DD are black and white with zero nuance and some miraculous ability to know what Kavanaugh did 36 years ago, in what context, and how it was received.
Re-read.
aloha FF, ” Harm to a victim would need to be established.” Disagree with you. There is such a thing as harm to society. Shame to the established order. Disgrace to morals and principles. Moral turpitude should never be tolerated in the administration of justice. Folks like EOS will allow any immorality to be perpetrated in the pursuit of power. Not necessarily a crime, definitely reprehensible. The administrators of justice, ie. judges are supposed to be repositories of moral and judicial prudence.
as an aside, there was no “victim” in the Clinton/Lewensky affair. The Republicans were so outraged they impeached Clinton regardless. You are right, “an act of sexual assault does not occur in a vacuum.”
anonymous– consent is tricky to confirm legally. And it’s the basis for most sexual assault determinations. Between that and the need for third party witness, it’s very hard to prosecute sex crimes. But the law still sets a standard for acceptable behavior and not. With the exception of marital rape loopholes and not knowing how to deal with sexting, the MI laws are pretty decent re sexual assault. I assume DC’s and connecticut’s are too. Their standard is enough to impeach Kavanaugh. (please remember impeachment is a hearing for removal not removal itself)
Aloha FF, by the way you lied about my comment. I said peeing in public was a “sexual crime” I never said that peeing in public was a “sexual assault”. Words have meaning. Exposing one self in public will get you on the sexual crimes register. Misquoting some one is typical of those whose arguments are fundamentally weak.
I know you were not looking for agreement from me but I agree that Stallman is an idiot, Anonymous.
He said underage victims were “totally willing”.
The vast majority of people and the law disagrees with this bozo: Age of consent.
DD — you might want to read what Monica Lewinski says before asserting that there was no victim in the Clinton scandal.
Of course, in her case, the press and we liberals in unrighteousness Were almost certainly more damaging than the experience itself.
’Our righteousness’*
FF I was replying to DD not you. Correcting the record.
That’s obvious.
The only thing I objected to re you and this goes for everyone is the idea that what constitutes sexual assault is something we get to define individually.
“Harm to a victim would need to be established.” Disagree with you.”–DD
I agree with you. That is why I included the idea endangerment. We could also widen it to say potential endangerment. Context matters. Intent matters.
What Kavanaugh is accused of doing is sexual assault under the law. If he did it. Is consent really in question for you? Are you not believing the tesony of these women? Why not?
Many People also enjoy being tired up and beaten when there is mutual consent, but I don’t that if you were tired up and beaten maliciously, you would appreciate the police and public questioning if you consented. You would expect to be believed first. The same standard should be applied to sexual assault as any assault.
Fraud happens in all crimes, and it usually reveals itself. Starting investigation with questioning the victim is unique to sex crimes and domestic violence, and it’s changing, thank God.
“”Aloha FF, don’t know what world you live in but ” he act of exposing yourself by itself does not constitute sexual assault because act do not occur in some sort of vacuum.” IS IN FACT AN SEXUAL ASSAULT. pulling your dick out in public to take a pee, is a sexual crime.”–DD
I did not lie DD. If you read what you wrote I think I have strong reason to believe that you were saying that exposing oneself, even if it is an exposure while peeing, constitutes a sexual crime and even a sexual assault.
I think you are missing the point. Peeing in public is not necessarily a sexual crime although there are people who have been convicted of it…Context matters. Intent matters. How the act was received matters.
I am attacking the idea that we can assign guilt to supposedly illegal acts, belonging to specific legal categories, without real knowledge of fuller context, evidence of intent, and evidence of harm/ endangerment/ recklessness/ foreseeability of possible harm.
Get it?
It is fucking ridiculous for anyone here to call Kavanaugh a sex offender. It is ridiculous for Kamala Harris to say “he lied”.
Jean,
It is not clear. Especially if you want to raise it to a crime of “sexual assault”.
If we believe Ramirez. He exposed himself and she slapped his penis. You just got done saying exposure is not sexual assault. Obvious grey area.
If we believe the other story. Kavanaugh exposed himself and a third party grabbed his penis and pushed it into a woman’s hand. Did Kavanaugh give them consent to grab his penis? Obvious grey area.
Context matters. What is the deal with the dorm room party? Were they playing “Truth or Dare”? It is not clear. Ramirez had her eyes closed? Dildos were being passed around in a circle? Kavanaugh exposed himself? Boys and girls laughing together? No charges. Were they playing a drinking game? All this stuff matters.
I don’t know if you know this but Ramirez actually said she was not confident in her recollection of her story until after she met with attorneys.
Aloha JH, Perhaps you should read what Monica says. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/05/monica-lewinsky-speaks
“Ramirez was initially hesitant to speak publicly, she told the magazine, partly because her memory contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. She was unsure of his role in the incident at first, but after six days of carefully assessing memories and consulting with her attorney, Stan Garnett, Ramirez told The New Yorker she felt confident enough in her recollections to say she remembers it was Kavanaugh who had exposed himself.”
According to friends of the other alleged victim, she does not recall the incident.
There is nothing firm about any of this.
35 years after attending a college party Ramirez was unsure of Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident.
6 days later Ramirez was confident in her recollections to say she remembers it was Kavanaugh who had exposed himself.
Who carefully assesses, for six days, a “memory” of something that happened 35 years prior while they were drunk? What does that 6 day assessment of a “memory” look like? An attorney was involved but what else? Did she squint her eyes real hard? Hypnosis?
At some point the stress will get to him and he’ll show up for SCOTUS oral arguments drunk. And then thrust his penis into RBGs face. GOP will argue precedent has been established – and immediately move to strike from the record. Degenerates the whole lot.
The issue is that the FBI was blocked from conducting a standard background investigation.
There are a lot of issues around Kavanaugh. I took issue with Harris saying “he lied”. Then I took issue with being called “pro sexual assault” by Lying Lynne. Then I took issue with various forms of black or white thinking…
that isn’t a problem, what really needs to happen is that the accusers need to be put on trial for bringing this against a respected judge
False-allegations happen. Being falsely accused is a serious thing.
I understand, FF. It often seems like personal attacks immediately derail any thoughtful debate on the social/political issues. It’s very unfortunate really.
On Harris saying, “he lied,” I wasn’t sure to what she was referring specifically. Cavanaugh did say some things which were obviously not true about what certain terms in his year book meant. It’s fairly well known what they mean. I wondered if that was what she was referring to, and not the sexual assault allegations. I don’t think she specified.
I do agree with Harris that the GOP’s conducted a sham confirmation hearing. And after we all got to watch a grown man behave like a bizarre stunted child, it was clear the hearing was a sham.
False allegations happen on this blog quite often.
Aloha, I am not a word smith, and making word salads are difficult for me to manage. But Websters definitions of “allegation” are, “a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof:” and :” an assertion unsupported and by implication regarded as unsupportable”. While the definition of false is “not genuine”,” intentionally untrue”. So it seems like a “false allegation” is a form of double negative. False seems to negate the meaning of allegation, just saying. Accusations, now that is a word I am more in favor of.
Aloha, here is an interesting tidbit. As the Democrats in the House move forward with Trump impeachment hearings,
JUST IN: Judiciary Committee Democrats have noticed a Sept. 23 hearing titled “Presidential Corruption: Emoluments and Profiting Off the Presidency”.
I am reasonably certain that numerous accusations of Trump self-dealing will be made, will there also be allegations as well, probably. As discerning voters it is important to understand the differences between accusations and allegations.
Do some people here feel Trump deserves special treatment because of his obvious mental and emotional problems? I ask that in all sincerity.
I sometimes get the impression that some people here feel certain commenters should be given special treatment because of mental and/or emotional problems. I would agree, but conditionally.
It’s obviously very different when such a character is installed in what is likely the most powerful political office in the world.
An alcoholic, a sexual predator, and a liar walk into a bar and the bartender says. “Will you have the usual today Mr Kavenaugh?”
FF, if you dont like being called out for being pro sexual assault, my advice is to stop saying things that lead people to that conclusion. It is pretty clear to me where you stand on the issue. You dont think allegations deserve any investigation and when an investigation turns something up you minimize the significance of the act by basically giving a “boys will be boys” argument. It is bullshit but what I have come to expect from you.
iRobert,
I think it is normal to tailor our interpretations of others to the individual based upon their unique perspective. Perhaps this is even more important with our presidents because we are sort of stuck with them for 4 years and although he/she might not be our first choice at least half of voters voted for him.
For example, I would have been very alarmed if Obama accused someone of treason. I would be alarmed because he is measured person, knowledgeable of the constitution and formal definitions within the constitution. Whereas, Trump actually has called people treasonous quite a few times and I interpret that as an example of him speaking without a filter and using the term in a way that is a result of his everyday/ non-legal/ non-technical/non- historical understanding of the word.
Even the Mueller report talked about interpreting Trump’s intent, regarding Trump’s possible obstruction, from the perspective of Trump’s unique perspective…
FF: “at least half of voters voted for him.”
I’ll assume you forgot.
Lynne,
I don’t even believe you were led to the conclusion that I am “pro sexual assault”. I think you are just trying to employ a tactic where you repeat a lie enough times in the hopes that somebody believes you. You see it as a smear opportunity. Think about how creepy that is….You HOPE people believe a lie you tell about somebody else and you are willing to waste your time repeating the same lie over and over. Super creepy Lynne.
I have said it before but I suspect Lynne has taken George Latkoff’s rules of engagement to their ugliest possible extreme. Latkoff’s writing actually has some merit, however, it also warned us about his rules in the hands of someone like Lynne.
Super creepy scumbag.
Haha. Close enough, iRobert. Plus I think the electoral college is good.
I don’t think accusations deserve any investigation? Ummm, I actually demand a high level of scrutiny. Higher scrutiny than we get from little miss judge and jury who displays she doesn’t knowing jack about anything other than her feelings and opinions.
At best you are someone who is willing to repeat lies over and over and over. You are not even good at smearing people. You are a total loser.
TTYL
FF, I agree that the electoral college serves a purpose and should remain in place.
I’m guessing Lynne is just lashing out in anger she’s feeling about the allegations. I do have to wonder what she imagines her strategy to be in suggesting a person is pro rape. Jean does something similar often. She’ll sometimes say she’s just trying to get a person wound up or something. I don’t believe that, though maybe it’s all a person can say at that point to excuse the behavior.
This comment section is a cesspool of humanity. Even without HW. It makes twitter look smart and reasoned.
That’s for sure, Jean.
Most people can agree that rape is bad, but I am not sure that everyone agrees on what rape is.
Something must have made you uncertain. What makes you uncertain, Anonymous?
I am only certain about what I would say rape is, which may or may not be different from what you or Lynne might say rape is.
“unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person’s will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception”–Meriam Webster
Some definitions seemed to focus on an aspect of penetration. I think this definition rightfully was expanded to include “oral sex” rape. Is there anybody who disagrees with this definition? I am guessing everybody accepts this definition. I am also guessing Anonymous doesn’t really believe that there is a disagreement about what rape is.
One way I might improve on this definition is making the idea of consent more explicit. I wish it would have included the idea that communicated consent is needed. I am not sure if necessarily needs to be verbal. What do you guys think? I certainly think people should be taught to seek consent prior to escalating thing toward an actual sex act.
These are just opinions from the pro rape side.
What does the anti rape side think?
Aloha, The Leaders favorite words are “Your fired”. Trump proposed changes to how the Feds can discipline and discharge employees will make it easier for whomever is President in 2021 to purge the bureaucracy.
Source: Washington Post
Politics
Federal employees could face more discipline under proposed new rules
By Eric Yoder, National reporter focusing on internal federal government personnel, management and budget policies
September 17 at 2:56 PM
Federal agencies would have greater freedom in disciplining their employees, and the employees would be guaranteed only the minimum protections required by law, under rules the Trump administration proposed Tuesday. … The rules would strip away many of the practices agencies have followed in disciplining employees while urging them to move as fast as the law allows. (1)
For example, the rules emphasize management’s discretion to order penalties up to firing in cases of alleged misconduct regardless of whether an agency had taken lesser actions against the employee first and regardless of how it had responded in some similar past situations. … For cases of alleged poor performance, agencies would have more leeway in fulfilling their obligation to help employees try to improve before taking disciplinary action.
Most of the changes would put in place the parts of a May 2018 executive order from President Trump that are not affected by a court injunction blocking portions of that order and two others issued at the same time. (2) … In proposing the rules for a 30-day comment period, the Office of Personnel Management said that “failure to address unacceptable performance and misconduct undermines morale, burdens good performers with subpar colleagues, and inhibits the ability of executive agencies to accomplish their missions.”
After issuing proposed rules, an agency must review the comments and respond to them when issuing final rules, which may included changes. There is no deadline for those steps. Further, changes in federal personnel policies commonly don’t take actual effect until OPM later issues guidance to agencies.
….
Eric Yoder is a National reporter at The Washington Post. He has reported for The Post since 2000, concentrating on federal employee issues, the budget and government management policies. Follow https://twitter.com/EricYoderWP
(1) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/09/17/2019-19636/probation-on-initial-appointment-to-a-competitive-position-performance-based-reduction-in-grade-and
Why would anyone use a dictionary to define rape when we are talking about a Supreme Court Justice and there are legal statutes? Why muddy the water? How is anything bit legal statute relevant to potential impeachment? Are you writing a novel FF?
You all argue over anything. Why don’t you just look it up??? Here is a good summary of the Michigan statutes establishing degrees of sexual assault.
https://sapac.umich.edu/article/189
We are middle of the road relative to other states, but there isn’t much variation. California’s verbal consent law is the most progressive.
Rape is usually defined as forced penetration of any orifice. My law includes sex with someone unconscious, unless it’s your spouse.
Listening to a bunch of dudes define rape for themselves is fucking annoying.
*MI law– I don’t have a law. I’m lawless.
Is this one of those weekly drink nights?
We were discussing general definitions of “rape”.
Some States don’t even use the term “rape” in their statutes.
If Jean thinks we should confine the conversation to only Kavanaugh and Connecticut then why is she talking about rape laws in Michigan when Kavanaugh is not of accused of rape and what he is accused of allegedly happened in Connecticut?
I knew a good link for Michigan. I said there’s not a pit of variation. You can look up the relevant statutes in Connecticut and DC. Unwanted sexual contact and exposure is sexual assault. There are varying degrees.
Rape has a standard legal definition. Not all first degree sexual assault is rape.
I don’t even know what you all are after but it gives me the creeps because it feels like a lead up to soft peddling the crime and questioning the victim. I know that’s not a kind view but I’ve seen it too many times before. FF you do seem to care about the issue. And yet still your angle of approach are Kavanaugh has been Disturbing. Not nearly as bad as iRobert’s take during the first inquiry though.
I don’t think men sitting around trying to define rape is likely to produce satisfactory results. I apologize for my lack of faith in male empathy in this issue.
Aloha JH, your complaints about duds sitting around and defining rape would be better expressed towards the various state legislatures I think. “ I don’t think men sitting around trying to define rape is going to produce very satisfactory results” is very true. Probably why the word does not appear in many state laws.
DD, dudes that have not figured out this truth which JH states, and continue to offer opinions on the systemic abuse by the patriarchy are about as credible as the ghost of Andrew Jackson weighing in on the sexual assault and murder crisis against Native women. Wake the fuck up. Seriously some assholes really need to try listening instead of talking for once in their life.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/1st-sexual-experience-rape_n_5d81db23e4b070d468c3c92a
I guess I am “pro rape” in that way too DD. I suspect the word rape was wrongly kept out of the legal language of certain states and replaced with gentler sounding descriptors. I actually think we should slightly expand the kind of acts which fall under the commonly understood term “rape”.
Maybe people disagree with me but I don’t like the terms “statutory rape”, “molestation”, and “sexual assault” as stand ins for the word “rape”. Rape is rape. I actually think the dictionary definition is better than the definitions of “sexual assault” Jean provided.
Fake and Clueless John Brown,
You have no clue how tuned-in to the horrible realities and prevalence of rape I have been for decades.
This is not news to me. Twenty years ago, people EXACTLY like the average Dems on this blog, literally laughed at me when I conveyed a guesstimate that 1/5 women are victims of some form of sexual assault, rape or molestation before they get out of college.
You and Lynne are so desperate to have some moral high ground you are trying to convey the notion that you are the anti-rape side and this imagined other side is the pro-rape side.
Identity politics is all you have because you are an empty shell.
I need to go but I just wanted to say that a few years ago I thought Jean said some wise things about teaching young people the need for explicit verbal consent. I think we need to talk about this stuff together but also with young adults…
To be honest FJB I don’t think you understood what DD just said. It was a very wise thing for DD to say, imo.
I just think it is funny that FF thinks I am lying about my opinion that he is pro sexual assault. Nope. That is my genuine opinion. His attitude as expressed on this blog is straight up Rape Culture 101.
Lynne,
Please give me examples of things I have said that, in your opinion, support rape culture and then I can address those items. If what you say is true, then this should be a good learning experience for me. Let’s talk. I will check back tonight and respond to your evidence tonight/ tomorrow morning.
Uh oh. It’s happening just like I said. Declas is beginning.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-34/?utm_source=link&utm_medium=header
At the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency, the President has directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to provide for the immediate declassification of the following materials: (1) pages 10-12 and 17-34 of the June 2017 application to the FISA court in the matter of Carter W. Page; (2) all FBI reports of interviews with Bruce G. Ohr prepared in connection with the Russia investigation; and (3) all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all Carter Page FISA applications.
In addition, President Donald J. Trump has directed the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to publicly release all text messages relating to the Russia investigation, without redaction, of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr.
FF, fair enough. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely would like to improve.
So first, I want to clarify, when I say that I think you are pro sexual assualt, I do not mean that you are out there sexually assaulting people. But rather, you seem to get angry when people want to address it. For instance, you are demanding a level of proof in this case which is similar to the level of proof expected in a criminal proceeding. Yet, he is not being prosecuted for these things. What is happening is that his confirmation hearings and in particular the FBI investigation into his history of sexually assaulting women was lacking. He shows no remorse for his actions nor even acknowledgement of them. He almost certainly lied. There are so many people giving different accounts of things that it seems pretty clear that he perjured himself during his hearings. Yet you are calling the Senator who wants to actually deal with that a “horrible person” and a “scumbag” for pointing out that this new evidence makes it all the more likely that he is lying and that wanting to make sure that women in this country don’t have to have yet another sex offender on the highest court in the land? Will a guy like Kavanaugh, who clearly isn’t owning up to his own bad past behavior protect the rights of women? At any rate, attacking those who are willing to make sure that there are consequences for sexual assault is one big way that rape culture is perpetuated in our culture. It happens all of the time too.
I remember an experience in college. “Nanette” was a fellow student but I didn’t know her. I would see her sitting alone in the cafeteria often so I asked my fellow students why no one would talk to her. It seems she had the audacity to accuse one of the popular athletes of raping her. No one believed her and instead of supporting her, they ostracized her! That is a very common thing. That is one of the reasons why I tend to believe women who claim they have been raped, harassed, or assaulted. The punishment for daring to make such an accusation is so severe that there is a huge disincentive for reporting these kinds of crimes. Unreported crimes like this are a bigger problem than false accusations.
“This is potentially just a teen exposing himself as a prank at a drunken college party” -FF
This kind of rhetoric excuses the behavior. Shoving your dick in someone’s face, while not rape, IS a sexual assault and it is not just a prank at a drunken college party. The notion that such behavior should be excused is not ok with me. It doesn’t matter if it is college students performing sexual assault. It doesn’t matter if they were drunk. That word “just” in that sentence is a minimizer. It is a way of saying that the behavior is no big deal but I assure you it often is to the victims.
Can you imagine how difficult it would be to find a Republican attorney who hadn’t shoved his dick in somebody’s face at some point? In the GOP they call that a “blue unicorn.”
I understand perfectly that the actual clueless dude is still talking when they should be listening. Sounds like laying the groundwork for this evil POS.
https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/just-like-brett-kavanaugh-gop-candidate-who-pleaded-guilty-to-sexual-battery-insists-hes-the-real-victim/
The new “victim” does not recall the alleged event according to her friends. That’s pretty fuckin’ wild I would say. About as wild as all these other hoaxes you have championed.
Lynne,
I am attacking Harris for saying “he lied”. Given the timing of her statement, it is safe to assume she is trying to insinuate that Kavanaugh lied about not being guilty of sexual assault. Her insinuation and false-claim to knowing what Kavanaugh did 36 years ago is what makes her scumbag.
When I said: “This is potentially just a teen exposing himself as a prank at a drunken college party”. Is that not a true statement?
Here are more true statements:
a) Potentially Ramirez is mistaking Kavanaugh for another person. = he didn’t lie
b) Potentially Ramirez is lying for political reasons. =he didn’t lie
c) Potentially Ramirez is having a false memory. =he didn’t lie
d) Potentially Ramirez forgot that she consented to enter a drinking game which involved nudity but forgot that aspect. =he didn’t lie
e) Potentially Kavanaugh did expose himself to her and she is lying about being disturbed by it, because it was part of a game she liked to play, but she lied about it bothering her for political reasons, but Kavanaugh forgot about the incident because he was drunk or because it happened 35 years ago.= he didn’t lie.
f)Potentially Kavanaugh exposed himself to her but does not remember it. =he didn’t lie.
g) Potentially Kavanaugh exposed himself to her, he doesn’t remember it, but she actually grabbed his penis as a joke rather than hitting it out of terror.= he didn’t lie.
f) Potentially Kavanaugh exposed himself to her in a way that does constitute assault and he remembers it. = he lied.
The point is that only a scumbag would pretend they know the truth about what happened.
I will admit that it is hard to believe that if Kavanaugh, or anyone else, actually shoved their dick into a girls face at a party that it would be anything other than assault. Which is why I didn’t say that. I said ” this is potentially just a teen exposing as a prank at a drunken college party.”.
Regarding my use of the word “just”. In no way did I mean to minimize any act which was received in harmful way, but you are missing the point. Exposing yourself to someone else as a prank, if that is what happened, is only a prank if it is meant to be a prank AND if it is received as a harmless prank. If exposing oneself is in anyway received as a harmful event to the victim of the exposure then that of course trumps the intent of the person who exposes themselves. You really seem to miss this point I am trying to make. The easiest way to understand it is to realize that people expose themselves to other people all the time and it in no way amounts to sexual assault. I know this is true because multiple people have exposed themselves to me spontaneously, I didn’t want it to happen, I didn’t enjoy it, and yet it was not assault. Several times it was meant as a joke and although I did not find it funny it was not assault. Several times it was meant to be shocking/funny and although it was surprising it was not assault. Several times it was meant to be sexually exciting (although it wasn’t) it still was not assault.
The point is you don’t know what happened 36 years ago and acts of sexual assault do not occur in a vacuum.
Regarding the BS claim that I am trying to dismiss assault. I will quote myself from above:
“I definitely would like to hear more.”
“By all means, if there is evidence that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted someone then there should be consequences.”
“In summary, I am in favor of more facts/ evidence coming out before supporting Harris when she says “he lied”.”
“I don’t think accusations deserve any investigation? Ummm, I actually demand a high level of scrutiny.”
“The problem is huge and some of us have known it was a huge problem for a long time. You wouldn’t believe all the people who literally laughed at me 15-20-25 years ago when I guessed that 1/5 girls were victims of molestation, rape, or sexual assault before they got out of college. Now, people are more aware and that is a good thing.”
I would ask you to join me in criticizing rape-culture Lynne; but I think you need to first stop supporting lie-culture before you move onto to more complex issues, Lynne. It’s really not that complicated. You are guilty of the same type of false statements that Harris is guilty of making. Do I need to point your false statements out to you Lynne?
You have identified Kavanaugh as a sexual assaulter several times above. Where the fuck is the evidence? Are you not concerned with evidence and the truth?
That’s a lot of words.
HW– QANON true believer think sexual assault accusations against Kavanaugh are a hoax. Also, Climate change.
Here’s you genius President HW: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/17/trump-hispanics-new-mexico-rally-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/
No one has ever exposed themselves to me.
Where are you hanging out FF?
Aloha, I learn new stuff here all the time. I had never heard of a “blue unicorn” before today (and I’m a geezer with the waft of the 70’s lingering on me) and I like iRoberts definition. I’ll be sure to tell the lawyers I know, thanks.
Q has been correct over and over and by my calculations will continue to do so until you have to shut the fuck up forever, Jean.
When did I ever say climate change is a hoax? I’m the one who brings science to the table when I talk about the mind-boggling scale of climate change that occurs in this world. I don’t think anyone has acknowledged that. You know: how only thousands of years ago our area was completely covered by massive glaciers?
Hey HW, didn’t you say you bought 40s at Jeans party store?
Glaciers- Dude!
Never sold booze at my store. Must have been previous owners.
I was done with 40’s a long time before I encountered Jean. It was so weird. I instantly detected something was very wrong with this person when I heard her voice. She was saying something ill to her ex-husband.
Hyborian Warlord,
Was the ex the chef? That guy was pretty good.
Sad,
Don’t call it a party store. It was a boutique neighborhood market. “Party store” sounds low-class.
That chef deserves a medal.
Aloha HW, “When did I ever say climate change is a hoax? “—EVERY TIME you open your mouth in support of the climate denier in chief. It is obvious to me, when you are not commenting on this blog, it is because you don’t know what Q wants you to parrot. Every time you voice support for Trump you are denying the reality of climate change. You like all the other deniers, now scramble around for any shred of scientific reality (sun spots, the Great Year etc) as possible causes of what can no longer be denied. Grand Bahama, and Abaco are the latest warnings–You mindless followers still refuse to face the reality of NOLA and Puerto Rico. Where do you stand on the coming war with Iran? Has Q told you what to think yet? How about the failed Tailban negotiations (Q tell you what to think yet?). Still waiting on the LEADER to round up all the pedophiles with all those secret indictments. You are such a confused and hateful child. Your parents must have really done a job on you. I understand that therapy can be helpful.
I’m still waiting for your apology DD for that horrible video you shared about Mayor Pete.
Internet trash. You criticize HW but share a video from a journalist who goes by the name Krystal Ball?
I think people on both sides of the climate debate can agree we need to clean the toxin so from our air, water, food and medicines. We can work together on that.
iRobert sounds like Marianne Williamson.
FF, you are hopeless and I will try to remind myself of that and just ignore you. You are much like HW and your opinions have no value.
You say things like “By all means, if there is evidence that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted someone then there should be consequences.” and then do your best to disparage anyone who sees that evidence and calls for the consequences (i.e. Harris). You aren’t fooling anyone.
And by all means, point out which statements YOU think I have made which are false. It doesn’t matter because you are not credible here.
Aloha Sad, I’m sorry, but how could I resist sharing some one named Krystal Ball (do you think her parents gave her that name? I was named Sue by my sisters, took a long time to live that one down). Who the messenger is, is always much more important than what the message is–I’ll try to learn that lesson. Pete seems to be slipping a little. Of course there is still over 100 days before a single vote gets counted.
Lynne,
I’m sad you are considering giving up on me. I don’t know why but I still want to offer you a lifeline so that you can pull yourself out of the darkness. Are you familiar with the JTB model for knowledge? I think if you gained a little knowledge on JTB model it would be a good basic reference point so we can begin to examine your truth claims. After we both agree that the vast majority of your truth claims are bullshit then we can move onto deeper questions like: Toward what purpose are the vast majority of Lynne’s truth claims bullshit? Then we can start asking even more interesting questions like: Is Lynne’s mode of assembling bullshit truth claims counterproductive for the world and even against her own stated goals?
It will be a lot fun. Are you in?
“Was the ex the chef? That guy was pretty good.”
I am pretty sure. She said they continued to work together after they divorced or split up; whatever. The first time I went in there I heard a female voice saying something that sounded angry and demeaning in the back then Jean Henry busted through the door shaking her head. I could tell she was out of her mind before I ever laid eyes on her.
anonymous– Party store implies booze. I assure you we were not high class by restaurant standards, quite the opposite. We opened the business to get away from all that. We treated everyone the same. Sometimes the fancy folk didn’t like that.
HW– I’m sorry you had an unpleasant experience at the market, most people found it quite enjoyable. My ex, Matt, and I are still good friends. I’m pleased we both found our way out of a very hard situation without too much damage. It takes a lot of work to salvage something good from the wreckage of a marriage. I’m proud we were able to do so. It’s extremely unlikely that I was yelling at him at the market. There were a few rough months, as in any marriage under stress. Maybe your timing was bad.
Feel free to look him up and tell him what a terrible person I am. That should go well.
It sounded like maybe you needed to work a little harder at it then. To my ears you sounded crazy as shit just like you are at the keyboard. Leaving there I was thinking “what is up with that lady?” Something was up. I was sure of it and I was correct.
Yes, you’ve said that many times. SOOOO mant times. I suggest that your perception of reality is just a tad distorted. Feel free to ask anyone who spent any time around the place. Or not. I’m really ok if you felt aversion to me; I must have been doing something right. It wasn’t the place for you HW.
FF, I kind of remember it from a philosophy class. Basically it is that if a belief is true and someone believes it, they have a justified belief. But of course, there are many times when although we cannot be 100% sure that something is true, we can weigh the evidence and determine the odds that it is true. The odds that Ford made up her testimony are very low. The odds that other claims against Kavanaugh are untrue is also low especially in the light of this new evidence uncovered with multiple people giving statements about his behavior.
You seem to expect 100% certainty which is where the bullshit you are looking for lies. You will never get that. Even our criminal system which has higher standards for truth than senate conformations allows for less than 100% certainty.
No, that is not right.
In order for a truth claim to actually be knowledge a belief not only needs to be true but you must be justified in your belief. It is not enough to believe something and that same thing to happen to be true.
Lynne and Kamala claim to know Kavanaugh committed sexual assault AND lied about it. The status of Lynne and Kamala’s truth claim, that is whether or not it is actually knowledge, does not simply hinge on whether or not Kavanaugh actually committed sexual assault and lied about it. In order for Lynne and Kamala’s truth claim to be knowledge they must be justified in their belief.
Do you really want to pretend you are plugging likelihood into a formula that is spitting out probability here, Lynne?
Even if we bracket whether or not the incident happened and focus on only whether or not Kavanaugh lied you have a situation where Kavanaugh claims he doesn’t believe he sexually assaulted either accuser. Ramirez, the supposed victim, admits that she did not remember Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident up until 35 years and 5 days after the supposed incident and yet Lynne and Kamala assume that Kavanaugh is lying when he says he does not remember the same supposed incident. Likewise, the friends of the other supposed victim say that she does not remember the incident and yet Lynne and Kamala assert that Kavanaugh is lying when he says he does not remember the same supposed incident.
That is something interesting math.
That is just one side of the equation. You need justification on both ends. You are not only accusing Kavanaugh of lying you are expressing a CONCLUSION that Kavanaugh actually sexually assaulted those two women and lied about it…You did not say it feels like there might be something there we should call for an investigation. You did not express a likelihood or probability you claimed to have a knowledge of something you can’t possibly have any level of certainty about the status of the act and what Kavanaugh remembers unless specific pieces of information fall into place. Maybe that evidence exists. I haven’t heard of that evidence, just snippets from a book, which I am not sure has been released yet (?) which is why I asked for the evidence. If it exists. Let’s fucking hear it.
Remind me: Is being the person who most inquires about evidence the person who is most likely to be pro rape culture? I forgot how that works.
Regarding Kamala: I don’t even think she believes “he lied”. She is someone who puts politics before truth. It is the same with her recent claim that Trump would have been indicted if not for the olc opinion….I don’t, not even for a minute, believe she actually believes that….She merely believes that there are enough ignorant people that will believe that lie and so she tells it because she thinks it is to her political advantage…
It is not about 100% certainty at all. This is not an exercise in skepticism. It is about trying to take a much more honest approach for most of us. For others it is about taking the necessary steps so that they can stop their own endless lying.
“Stop your endless lying” that’s fucking rich coming from a lying fascist enabler!
Looks like the intelligence community is about done with the endless lying of the Ruskies stooge in the WH. I’m curious to how all those complicit apologists like FF & HW are handle the truth. Based on their performance to date, not well, not well at all…..
Today Chuck Grassley posted about the corn harvest in Iowa so Q followers think the long-awaited indictments are coming. #cornwatch
https://twitter.com/travis_view/status/1174741212101672960?s=20
“The odds that Ford made up her testimony are very low.”
What are the odds in your opinion? I think it was you who said before that 9/10 sexual assault cases are legit and that was enough to believe Blasey. Odds have nothing to do with it. If it is that 1/10 then that’s what you have to deal with. Did you know her own dad expressed that he was happy Kav got the nom and none of her family showed up to support her? What are the odds of that?
A lot of government people are mentioning corn and it is kind of odd. It’s almost like there are coded communications going on right under our nose. Why did Gillibrand post “EVERGREEN” when she dropped out? Do you know who’s code name that is?
What political donor that Q brought to our attention long ago just got arrested for male prostitutes dying at his place all the time? Q is on the money over and over. Usually it’s way ahead of developments in the news, like a year ahead or more.
Remember that rash of the word ‘fulsome’ a year ago or whenever that was? It was an unusual spike in media usage of what I think of as a somewhat archaic term and quite rare in daily speech. I used it in posts myself as a marker of sorts. Now it turns out the FVEY (Q also turned us on to that) spy operation on Donald Trump was called…Project FULSOME. Huh! It’s all just a bunch of bullshit though. Keep telling yourself that and keep getting more hysterical as the walls close in on your belief system, not mine.
I think that is great Fake John Brown. There should be a back and forth. I just got done explaining how and why I believe Lynne and Kamala are lying. Can you point out where you think I have lied? We can sort it out. Give it go!
Sad,
I am kinda feeling that Marianne Williamson energy. It’s cool that you sensed that.
Williamson was my first choice.
But I decided to be realistic.
Don’t listen to Jean, DD. The rest of us here love you.
Like I said, you guys are hopeless.
You just figured this out?
And you engage with them as is though they’re rational?
Both FF and HW have a lot of words.
“The fact that something hasn’t been proven doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen, right?”–Kamala Harris
Yes, Sad, and the way they arrange them makes me feel sad too.