So if she shows up at all should her statments before the Congress be subject to to making false statements. If she says that the three witness saw everything and they have the under penalty of felony for making a false statement to federal investigators interview transcripts and officially submitted statements to prove she is not telling the truth should she be charged with making false statements. If Kavanaugh's calendar shows he was nowhere near the location and has entries showing he was never at house party in that vicinity should she be charged with making false statements? Is this why she doesn't want to testify because if she says the above she could be charged and then it go to trial and the witnesses would be called in to testify in that trial and they will testify she is not speaking the truth.
I don't think the case for false statements could be made for her. This entire story of hers is a "repressed memory" that came out as a result of therapy. So even though I think that repressed memories are bunk as is her story, she probably really believes it. So from her perspective, she wouldn't be lying. Ramirez on the other hand will probably back out of any testimony because she knows her story is bunk.
I agree; although I would still nail Ford for making false statements. The law is the law and our leftists are treating it like it's their toilet paper. That aside, yes, Ramirez has already stated that she is refusing to meet with Congress. So she knows that she led with nothing and is on the edge of being in huge trouble.
They'd need a smoking gun, like a girlfriend who comes forward and says she admitted to making the whole thing up. Then Kavanagh would intercede (if confirmed, which I don't think he will be) and tell them to let her go.
The thing is, her statements could be true and his calendars could be phony. None if us are in position to say either way. Kavanaugh, however, has been proven to have made false statements to Congress in the past. So if you charge her with no definitive proof, why wouldn't you charge him with actual, verified false statements?
All ****ing liars should be held accountable under the law regardless of politics, gender or anything else. The sad truth is we have many people who support lies on one side and oppose lies on the other. Liars can't be trusted. Ever.
All liars. The best thing Trump will ever do for this nation is beat Hillary in the 2016 election. After that, it's all been downhill.....funny, but downhill.
Then watch a lot of I can't remember facts from her today. What can she say today that will convince you she is telling the truth?
Have you guys seen this report that two men have come forward and claimed that they and not Kavanaugh were the ones at the party with Ms. Ford? God help us, this is the biggest MESS I ever saw!!
Probably true. Provide a diary would be nice. The fact remains we have people on this forum pushing a false narrative that witnesses recall with perfect clarity that they weren't there, it didn't happen or never heard of Brett. That's both false and unlikely due to the time interval involved. Again, liars can't be trusted and if Congress really wants justice done and to find the truth, they'll ask that the FBI explore these allegations...but they because this isn't about truth, justice and the American way, it's about politics and stacking the SCOTUS deck for 30-40 years.
A criminal case for making false, misleading statements to Congress is one legal path. Civil case(s) for LIBEL and SLANDER are other venues. Even self-righteous, doctrinaire Democrats with VERY high opinions of themselves need to be forced to understand, CLEARLY, that poorly-considered, very VISIBLE statements made recklessly against NAMED persons in public -- without any proof or evidence can have devastating CONSEQUENCES....
All true. Don't forget to add Republicans to your last statement since it applies to them as well.....or do you have different standards for each?
Same standard should apply to everyone, Max. Nevertheless, while I can think of at least three prominent lock-step Democrats who could be targets of some very juicy LIBEL and SLANDER civil law suits, I am as yet unaware of any Republicans who have painted 'bulls-eyes' on themselves by doing anything as stupidly flagrant recently. Got any names?
Agreed 100%. So sue them. I'm good with it. I think most of those assclowns in Washington are hurting Americans, that's why I'm neither a ****ing Democrat nor a ****ing Republican. They all suck ass. 'bulls-eyes'? Where does that come from?
I meant that to this point, I'm unaware of any Republicans who have made targets of themselves (literally, painting 'bulls-eyes' on themselves) by making themselves unbelievably vulnerable to civil lawsuit cases in which they (Republicans) would be facing devastating civil lawsuits for libel and/or slander (libel makes for a much stronger case). By contrast, a number of Democrats seem to have done exactly that already, and I hope they get hit with lawsuits so horrific that they'll never live anywhere but a homeless shelter and eating at community 'soup kitchens' for the rest of their rotten, corrupt lives.... It's a very bad thing to destroy a man -- with NO evidence or proof. Anything that happens now to these despicable Democrat creeps is well-deserved!
Thank you for the explanation. Can you cite any examples of where Washington politician has "made targets of themselves (literally, painting 'bulls-eyes' on themselves) by making themselves unbelievably vulnerable to civil lawsuit cases"? Isn't the real problem in America that we have too many ****ing lawyers and not enough revolutionaries as Thomas Jefferson spoke about? Link? Evidence? Lawsuits? Doesn't that require ****ing lawyers? Are you a supporter of ****ing lawyers? If anyone is destroying anyone, it's Brett himself. Nobody made him meltdown and lie on national TV. He did all of that himself.
Trump has been a good president in-spite of opposition from the Deep State, the democrsts, the lib media, RINOs in in congress and no support from the usual fence sitters around here
Well, yes, Max, IF Brett Kavanaugh were to decide to file charges against his accusers in a civil court for libel and/or slander, he would almost certainly use the services of an attorney. That's the way we 'do' legal action, unless a person wants to represent himself in court (rarely a good idea). If it's any comfort, I don't particularly like lawyers either! I was once involved in a civil lawsuit (as one of a group of plaintiffs), and our group's attorney was so dense, uncomprehending, inattentive, and imprecise that I, with almost no pertinent legal training, had to put together all the crucially-important tactics for our case, which we won with a nice out-of-court settlement. It still galls me that we paid this moron 25% of the award, but so it goes.... All that notwithstanding, Max -- in my admittedly not-so-humble opinion, and "win, lose, or draw" on the Supreme Court nomination, it is GLARINGLY apparent to me that Brett Kavanaugh has ample legal grounds upon which to sue some or all of his accusers for LIBEL and SLANDER. He may need to, because if they are successful in destroying him, he'll never be able to return to his job as a Federal Appeals Court Judge again. His professional life will have been thoroughly ruined! He'd never work in the legal sector again. Horrible! But, if he is awarded millions of dollars in various lawsuits for libel and slander, it would at least provide some compensation for these deliberate, unproven public accusations against him.
He can try, but such lawsuits are not only notoriously difficult to win, but can open doors he'd rather not open. Let's not forget, it's not just his seat on SCOTUS that is being questioned, but his fitness as a Federal judge.
Only if you can prove it with evidence that she purposely lied, not just that the statements she made didn't have corroborating evidence.
The only thing that Kavanaugh would need to prove in a civil court would be that the libel and/or slander (both are involved here) had materially harmed him in his "trade, calling, or profession". If he's denied a seat on the SCOTUS because of unfounded, unproven accusations for which no evidence or proof was offered, and, if he cannot even resume his job as a federal judge, has he been harmed in his "trade, calling, or profession"...?! Truth, per se, is a defense in even severe cases of the criticism of those who are deemed 'public officials', and Brett Kavanaugh is a Federal Appeals Court Judge -- and thus, a 'public official' (according to New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). But in a civil action, it would be the responsibility then of the accusers to PROVE that they had told the TRUTH when they accused Kavanaugh of all these things. No proof? No defense. And the next likely things that would happen would be those that attend the paying of immense court awards for damages. It is a truly terrible thing to destroy a person without any justification, evidence, or proof, and the consequences for willfully engaging in this kind of thing can be equally terrible....
