Why They'll Never Stop Targeting Kavanaugh

  
Via:  drakkonis  •  one month ago  •  52 comments

Why They'll Never Stop Targeting Kavanaugh
Here are the reasons, in no certain order, that the accusations against Justice Brett Kavanaugh will never stop and his foes on the progressive left never let up.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Here are the reasons, in no certain order, that the accusations against Justice Brett Kavanaugh will never stop and his foes on the progressive left never let up.

Because progressives have to justify advancing the sexual-assault accusations of Christine Blasey Ford. They lost that battle; Justice Kavanaugh sits on the court. They won’t stop the assault until they can prove they were right to launch it.

Because people become fixated on their targets. Because #MeToo continues as a potent cultural force. Because as the court assumes an ever more powerful role in American life, confirmation hearings and their aftermath will become more brutal and never-ending.

 
Because the authority and legitimacy of future rulings that are not pleasing to progressives (most prominently, perhaps, on Roe v. Wade) can be undermined through footnotes that say “the 5-4 decision was joined by a justice credibly accused of sexual assault.”

Because the steady drum of allegations diminishes not only Justice Kavanaugh’s stature but that of the court itself, which will be helpful when Democrats attempt to pack it. 

Because the crazier parts of the progressive left increasingly see politics as public theater, with heroes and villains, cheers and hisses from the audience, and costumes, such as outfits from “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Because modern politics is, for the lonely and strange on all sides, entertainment and diversion. And one’s people must be entertained. 

Because many progressives believe deep in their hearts that conservative men are both sexually obsessed and repressed, that conservatism is a way of looking at the world in which women are lesser, mere prey. They think this is behind everything, including conservative reservations about or opposition to abortion. In this view, conservative jurists who say things like “60% of my clerks were women” and “I coach the girls’ soccer and debate teams” are engaged in an elaborate cover. They hate the modern world. Behind closed doors they’re always swinging caveman’s clubs. 

Because where there’s smoke there must be fire. There was Ms. Ford, then the Yale rumors. There’s no way there isn’t something to it.

So it will never end. 

For Democrats, it is not “good politics,” and most of them know it. What was done to Justice Kavanaugh had a positive impact on 2018 Senate outcomes—for Republicans. There was a backlash. Women worried their sons and husbands would be targeted in a prosecutorial atmosphere that had abandoned due process. 

People are complicated. Jill Abramson, who covered the 1991 Clarence Thomas hearings as a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, told a story years later. Anita Hill had just testified. During a break, Ms. Abramson went for lunch in the Supreme Court cafeteria. As she stood waiting to pay for her food she chatted with another reporter about how Ms. Hill’s testimony had been lethal for Judge Thomas. The cashier, a middle-aged black woman, overheard, gave Ms. Abramson a baleful look, and said: “They’ll do anything to bring down a black man.” It was clear she supported him. In Ms. Abramson’s view it was an early sign of broader public opinion. 

In an excerpt from a new book by two of its reporters, the New York Times this week famously reported another allegation of sexual misconduct by an undergraduate Mr. Kavanaugh. The Times later corrected its story to note the purported victim refused to be interviewed for the book and friends say she has no memory of such an incident. Democratic presidential contenders had already called for Justice Kavanaugh’s impeachment. Soon they changed the subject. But they’ll return to it.

What is kind of horrifying is the extent to which all this stems from the charges brought last year by Ms. Ford. Mr. Kavanaugh, she said, had drunkenly attempted to force himself on her at a high-school party. 

I watched her testimony, as I’ve written before, with a bias. In my experience women in such matters are telling the truth. I assumed her charges would be substantiated. 

And yet they were not, not at all, not even after a year. Not a single witness emerged to corroborate her account. The woman Ms. Ford described as a close, lifelong friend who could back up her account said she remembered no such party or gathering and had in fact never met Brett Kavanaugh. Now she admits she does not herself believe Ms. Ford’s story.

Throughout the drama those who believed Judge Kavanaugh’s denials operated at a disadvantage: Any criticism of Ms. Ford would be treated as a smear, so there was almost none.

I’m reminded of this by the riveting book “Justice On Trial,” by Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino. Most such investigations are written by liberal journalists for a liberal audience; Ms. Hemingway and Ms. Severino are conservatives who went forward with journalistic seriousness and paid attention to information others might ignore. They suggest “where there’s smoke there’s fire” can’t be applied to the Kavanaugh case because from the moment he was nominated to the court he was targeted by pyromaniacs. 

A leftist feminist group linked him to allegations of sexual harassment against another judge, for whom he’d clerked a quarter-century before. An activist group accused him of supporting the “problematic trope that the Constitution should be ‘colorblind.’ ” Another group said his judicial philosophy amounted to supporting the “white supremacist patriarchy.” 

This was par for the course for a Republican nominee, but soon after Ms. Ford’s charges came the New Yorker story in which a Yale classmate of Judge Kavanaugh said that during her freshman year he exposed himself at a drunken dorm party and caused her to touch his genitals. But the story didn’t hold—the reporters were unable to find a witness to corroborate it, the accuser had “significant gaps” in her memories, and it took six days of “carefully assessing her memories” and consulting with an attorney provided by Democrats, to name Judge Kavanaugh. 

The since-disgraced lawyer Michael Avenatti then brought forward a woman who claimed she was gang raped at a high-school party by Mr. Kavanaugh and his friends, as were other young women. Her story fell apart too. 

Then a charge came in through Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. A constituent had called his office to say a man believed to be Mr. Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted a woman on a boat in Newport, R.I., in 1985. Now there was a fourth accuser! Eventually the Judiciary Committee tracked down the constituent, an anti-Trump activist who’d called for a military coup. He later recanted his accusations on Twitter and apologized. 

A letter to Sen. Kamala Harris’s office claimed Judge Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted a woman while driving home from a party. The accuser was a political activist who later admitted her charge was “just a ploy” made because she was angry. Asked if she’d ever met Judge Kavanaugh she said, “Oh Lord, no.” 
In both cases the accusers seemed shocked you couldn’t just . . . lie.

“Normally the burden of proof is on the accuser,” write Ms. Hemingway and Ms. Severino, “but the media were not even paying lip service to that principle.” 
They weren’t. 

The charges will probably never stop, but at this point many of us, having seen what Justice Kavanaugh was put through because of ideology and politics, will never find them believable. 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Drakkonis
1  seeder  Drakkonis    one month ago

Probably the best summary I've read so far. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1  Heartland American  replied to  Drakkonis @1    one month ago

It is exactly right.  Thanks for seeding this fine article.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Noonan is as a good as a pundit as there is.

Can’t argue with these:

“Because the steady drum of allegations diminishes not only Justice Kavanaugh’s stature but that of the court itself, which will be helpful when Democrats attempt to pack it. 

Because the crazier parts of the progressive left increasingly see politics as public theater, with heroes and villains, cheers and hisses from the audience, and costumes, such as outfits from “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Because modern politics is, for the lonely and strange on all sides, entertainment and diversion. And one’s people must be entertained.”

She touches on a crucial point, many progressives seem to view politics as a morality play, and they cast themselves as the hero fighting evil. That’s why so they are incapable of believing someone can disagree with them without being evil. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    one month ago

Excellent perspective.  I've been trying to wrap my head around the virtual psychosis of the far left as it progresses to infect those who in the past have been thought to be more moderate, but it's been extremely difficult.  The level of hysteria that surround this public political theater lacks roots in reality whereas during the 60's the issues were obvious and the battleground clear.

The misinformation age and the culture of complaint along with a myriad of other dysfunctional social factors have unleashed the Kracken of mass hysteria. Who knows where it will all end.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3  XDm9mm    one month ago
Here are the reasons, in no certain order, that the accusations against Justice Brett Kavanaugh will never stop and his foes on the progressive left never let up.

.....

.....

.....

The charges will probably never stop, but at this point many of us, having seen what Justice Kavanaugh was put through because of ideology and politics, will never find them believable. 

BRAVO    BRAVO   BRAVO

Well written and very truthful.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Every time the Court is about to take a turn towards a "originalist'/"textualist" majority we have some outrageous action from the left. Starting with the great Robert Bork to Clarence Thomas right on to Brett Kavanaugh the onslaught against civility and decency has continued. The frightening part is the modern progressive idea of belief becoming truth. That is what causes liberals to feel it's ok to come forward an lodge a false allegation.

 
 
 
CB
5  CB     one month ago
Because progressives have to justify advancing the sexual-assault accusations of Christine Blasey Ford. They lost that battle ; Justice Kavanaugh sits on the court. They won’t stop the assault until they can prove they were right to launch it. Because people become fixated on their targets. Because #MeToo continues as a potent cultural force. Because as the court assumes an ever more powerful role in American life , confirmation hearings and their aftermath will become more brutal and never-ending .

Drakkonis, "they lost the battle." This is interesting—especially because it come from well, you. You tend to represent standards so well, and yet no matter how late it was reported, charges were made against Mr. Kavanaugh that still have no been fully vetted; largely due to the interference from the overpowering President Donald Trump. He speaks and it is as if the "voice of God" has strummed the strings for conservatives throughout 'Trump's party. The 'battle' was not lost - the democrats were 'steamrolled' and not fully respected—as conservatives once demanded and swore to be the standard-bearers for. Alas! Washington D.C. is a wreck. It is impotent, because of partisanship on both sides.

Washington, D.C. under your choice of leader, Donald Trump, has become a place of expediency. That is not good for a nation which plans to exist indefinitely . We are a sad lot - all of us - and we clearly can't even see how much so!

"Because as the court assumes an ever more powerful role in American life." Interesting. It once was the conservative mantra that courts were to be silent until spoken to, and keep a check on their activism. Now, it is pleasing to conservatives to take "issues" and "concerns" straight to the conservative court venues and receive conservative judgements. My, my, how things change and still they remain the same.

America! Is a country rank with people who speak with forked tongues. It sickens me when I think about it. Our nation is suffering under a great big delusion when it brings all these different people from around the world together in one place (our country) to be mistreated and ignored miserably.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @5    one month ago
charges were made against Mr. Kavanaugh that still have no been fully vetted

How were they not "vetted" (ie investigated)?

The FBI interviewed Ford and others purportedly involved with the incident.

Ford, could not recall when, where, how she got there or how she got out.  She was apparently not very helpful or believable.  Personally, I do believe, well at least I did believe that she suffered some kind of ordeal, but possibly got the particulars confused with another party.  I know it's difficult to remember when you're drunk, but people generally remember the particulars BEFORE they got shit faced.

As to her witnesses, even her 'best friend' essentially refuted her allegation and denied any knowledge of anything like she described happening.  The other witnesses were supposedly recounting stuff others told them and were regurgitating as fact.   Second hand testimony is called 'hear say' in court and not admissible.

There's another poster here on NT that gets his panties in a bunch because the FBI supposedly didn't question Kavanaugh himself about this incident. 

First, I don't know whether they did or did not. 

Second, people that undergo an FBI background investigation for clearances and/or positions such as political appointments to the courts or other types of official positions have their backgrounds so thoroughly checked, vetted, double checked and verified seven different ways from hell as to be ridiculous.   When I was investigated for my clearance, they went so far as to locate people I went to High School with  (I graduated in Jan 1969 and was investigated in 2003) and neighbors in the area I lived in at the time.  There's very little if anything that they don't uncover or confront you with.  Justice Kavanaugh had gone through several of those prior to being re-investigated for his appointment to the SCOTUS.

But, how were they to question Kavanaugh?

We have someone saying that she thinks you assaulted her, where she doesn't know, and when she doesn't know, and her witnesses can't corroborate her story at best and at worst refute and deny it.

So, will you tell us about that encounter?

Had there ever been an incident as Ford described, there would have been someone somewhere along the line that would have either reported it, or remembered it during an investigation interview.  (Interviewees are advised that lying to help the individual being investigated is a felony.) 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
5.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1    one month ago
The FBI interviewed Ford and others purportedly involved with the incident.

They never interviewed Kavanaugh (the suspect) or any witnesses that may have been at the party.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @5.1.1    one month ago
They never interviewed Kavanaugh (the suspect)

First, the PURPORTED crime would be a STATE matter and not a federal one subject to federal law and under the purview of the FBI.

Second, as I indicated above:

how were they to question Kavanaugh? We have someone saying that she thinks you assaulted her, where she doesn't know, and when she doesn't know, and her witnesses can't corroborate her story at best and at worst refute and deny it.

Now as to this bit of intentional sidestepping bullshit.

or any witnesses that may have been at the party.

I present as evidence of that bullshit:

FBI Interviews Three Kavanaugh Witnesses Who Don't Remember Ford's Mystery Groping Party

Tue, 10/02/2018 - 10:54
Update : According to AP,  Mark Judge's lawyer confirms that The FBI's interview has now been completed.

*  *  *

It would seem the Democrats had better quickly switch the Kavanaugh narrative back to him being an immature teenage drinker quickly as The Washington Post reports that, according to sources, three witnesses whom Christine Blasey Ford alleges were at the party in her testimony have told The FBI that they do not recall the gathering .

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.2    one month ago

The ploy is so obvious. Mangle facts and set an illegal and impossible bar as the required level of "investigation" because they know it could never be met.  I have no idea who they think they are fooling with such transparently juvenile tactics.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.3    one month ago
 I have no idea who they think they are fooling with such transparently juvenile tactics.

The others of a like mind.

The interesting thing is the local Sheriff has publicly stated that he would initiate an investigation if a "victim" came forward willing to press charges.  Of course, filing a false police report is a crime, so don't hold your breath for that to happen.

 
 
 
GregTx
5.1.5  GregTx  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.4    one month ago

It's also interesting that no civil cases seem to have been brought forth.

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.6  Heartland American  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.4    one month ago

They are simply fooling themselves by their actions which isn’t hard as so many of them are actually fools.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
5.2  seeder  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @5    one month ago
...and yet no matter how late it was reported, charges were made against Mr. Kavanaugh that still have no been fully vetted;

I'm afraid I don't understand how this could be. Surely a year is enough time for Ms. Ford and her legal team to have come up with some sort of corroborating evidence. Further, as I understand it, Kavanaugh went through six or seven Federal background checks. I'm not sure what more you think could have been done. What would you suggest? 

largely due to the interference from the overpowering President Donald Trump. He speaks and it is as if the "voice of God" has strummed the strings for conservatives throughout 'Trump's party.

I don't recall President Trump having been involved. Confirming a SCOTUS candidate is the province of the Senate, not the Executive branch. Not sure how he could have influenced anything. 

The 'battle' was not lost - the democrats were 'steamrolled' and not fully respected—as conservatives once demanded and swore to be the standard-bearers for.

I'm afraid I don't see it that way. The Dems knew about Ford months before they oh-so-conveniently produced her just before the confirmation hearing. I'm not sure how anyone could not find that highly suspicious, unless they wanted such a thing. Not for justice for Ford, but an obvious ploy to prevent a conservative Judge from being appointed to the Supreme Court. And then the Ford/Kavanaugh hearings were absolutely sickening to watch. I don't know how you felt about it, assuming you watched it, but the way the Dems acted was pathetic. They couldn't "believe" Ford fast enough and they couldn't condemn Kavanaugh with more vitriol if they tried. Had the Dems had their way, Kavanaugh would likely be in prison right now, all on the word of one person. No due process. 

You see, what disgusts me most is that the Dems favorite tactic is to allege some malfeasance on someone they don't like and then demand that they step down. It doesn't even matter whether it's true or not. The goal is attach enough doubt in people's mind that the person is so encumbered by the accusations they often have to step down. They smear everyone who doesn't agree with them. They bring out this white male supremacist crap. Misogyny, hate, homophobia and all the rest. Doesn't matter what the individual actually thinks about it. Just label them and the left will start screaming bloody murder on principle alone.

How do you justify such actions?  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Drakkonis @5.2    one month ago

With the Democrats* it's never about the facts of the case, but the seriousness of the charge.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
5.2.2  seeder  Drakkonis  replied to  Greg Jones @5.2.1    one month ago

That's an apt way to put it.

 
 
 
CB
5.2.3  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @5.2    4 weeks ago
I don't recall President Trump having been involved. Confirming a SCOTUS candidate is the province of the Senate, not the Executive branch. Not sure how he could have influenced anything

Trump was heavily involved by Tweet and so one can assume he was involved by phone or meeting. (And he was.) But it took me a while to get back to this. You may even be away for a while now. So no big deal. It will come around again, I guess.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2.4  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @5.2.3    4 weeks ago
Trump was heavily involved by Tweet and so one can assume he was involved by phone or meeting. (And he was.)

Of course he was involved.  Kavanaugh was after all his pick for the Supreme Court.  Of course he advocated for him.  Of course he spoke with numerous Senators on his behalf.  Why would he not?

However, regardless of how much 'politicking' Trump did for Kavanaugh, it was still the purview of the Senate to confirm or deny the nomination.  They simply confirmed by vote his appointment.

 
 
 
CB
5.2.5  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.4    4 weeks ago

A simple majority is a manipulation of the people's wishes. The American Congress is politically a 'dead-zone.' I have actually only minimal faith in all of them. Especially after watching the Corey R. Lewandowski hearings. I turned off the set really early on. Congress is STUPID.

I am going to call the Democratic Speaker's office and register a complaint about the stupid ineffective hearings going on: this Monday.

Office Locations

Washington, DC Office

1236 Longworth H.O.B.
Washington , DC 20515

phone: (202) 225-4965
hours: M-F 9-5:30pm

San Francisco District Office

90 7th Street
Suite 2-800
San Francisco , CA 94103

phone: (415) 556-4862
hours: M-F 9-5:30pm

I would call the Senate, but it is a dead-dead-dead zone politically speaking for democratic actions!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2.6  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @5.2.5    4 weeks ago
I would call the Senate, but it is a dead-dead-dead zone politically speaking for democratic actions!

I feel the same about calling ANY Democrat.   They're simply dedicated to one thing and one thing only, impeaching Trump.  The hell with the rule of law, or even the rules of the house.  The presumption of innocence is unheard of if it's anyone even tangentially related to Trump.  

 
 
 
CB
5.2.7  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.6    4 weeks ago

Donald Trump is not even aware there is a rule of law, XDm9mm. That man is a rank lunatic in my opinion. This country is not his to do as he sees fit! And I am pissed that no one in Washington, D.C. seems to know how to tell him that. Poor stupid cabinet secretary (small s) Mnuchin made a complete fool of himself this Sunday on State of the Union when he was asked point blank about what Trump allegedly did to Biden in Ukraine in seeking to gather data on the man's son had it happened that a democratic president seeking reelection had done the same think to international businesses men: the Trump boys. And, Mnuchin's answer was tantamount to one long mouth fart!

What has Donald Trump done to conservatism? Damn, the heads of the party have made a deal with the devil, Donald Trump. And, he is enveloping all of you in his alternative vortex. It will take more time to see if any of you can unclamp from this man who lies for the pleasure he derives from it.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2.8  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @5.2.7    4 weeks ago
That man is a rank lunatic in my opinion.

And you're entitled to it.   Wrong as it might be, you're entitled to it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.3  Tacos!  replied to  CB @5    one month ago
charges were made against Mr. Kavanaugh that still have no been fully vetted

We hear this kind of thing all the time, but there is no standard for "fully." The investigation is never complete or fully complete, the candidate was not fully vetted, etc.

Because there is no standard, political partisans are free to repeatedly make these declarations - as if the judgment were self-evident, not requiring proof - and no one can ever argue back. 

However, there are official processes for these things. For presidential candidates, we have elections. For SCOTUS justices, we have senate hearings. And then it's over. You may not like the outcome or you may think you could have done it better. Anything could always have been done better. 

In a mature democracy that respects the rule of law, we move on - or at least we're supposed to.

 
 
 
CB
5.3.1  CB   replied to  Tacos! @5.3    4 weeks ago

Yeah, I didn't get back to this in time. So now, I feel like the 'moment' has passed for me. I watched the senate hearings on Kavanaugh. I don't know why things 'run' so stupidly in Congress. After all there is only one set of facts - that is, either he did what is said about it or he did not. But that we neither got a conclusion on that to through the proper steps annoys me.

This was so important to have been managed right, because a justice is a serious matter "for life."

Anyway, I have time now and will see if this article can be "revived" for me again.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.3.2  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @5.3.1    4 weeks ago
But that we neither got a conclusion on that to through the proper steps annoys me.

So what more would you like to see done?   

The 'victim' doesn't remember any specifics, and her witnesses "told The FBI that they do not recall the gathering" ( Source:   https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-02/fbi-interviews-three-kavanaugh-witnesses-who-dont-remember-fords-mystery-groping )

So, how do they investigate anything?

Further, if there was sufficient 'evidence' of anything, the local Sheriff has noted that he will open an investigation on the state law violations, but to date, no one has come forward to make a formal complaint.  Is there a possibility that any 'victim' might be concerned with making a false police report which is itself a crime? 

 
 
 
CB
5.3.3  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @5.3.2    4 weeks ago

I would like to see the Senate, FBI, and all witnesses be given closure. What happened before 'felt' like coitus interruptus, in my opinion. Closure is needed. I don't get paid the big bucks that Congress get - so I will only say they need to fix their stupidity once and for all. I am really starting to think old-age is killing that place! Need new blood!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.3.4  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @5.3.3    4 weeks ago
I would like to see the Senate, FBI, and all witnesses be given closure.

You have "closure".   Kavanaugh was nominated and got voted onto the Supreme Court.

If the 'victims' have valid and provable assault cases, they can bring charges through the local STATE/LOCAL authorities.   Even a SCOTUS Justice is not immune to criminal charges.   But, they need EVIDENCE, and not hearsay.  The only place where "I don't know" or "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" is beneficial is when facing a congressional hearing panel.

 
 
 
CB
5.3.5  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @5.3.4    4 weeks ago

I don't care how they get closure, they just need to do it right. It was a rush job by the time the public heard about it.That's how I feel about this. That's all.

 
 
 
Ronin2
6  Ronin2    one month ago

The left just doesn't get it. These fraudulent allegations of sexual assault are weakening the claims of those who were legitimately- especially if they are against anyone associated with politics.

They are setting up another Duke LaCrosse team false sexual assault trial fallout.  Maybe they need a refresher of why innocent until proven guilty is the bedrock of our legal system.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/duke-lacrosse-rape-espn-30-for-30_n_56e07e33e4b065e2e3d486f7

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/duke-lacrosse-case-fantastic-lies-documentary

In the end, there was no trial—a fact that most people forget. The three players received $20 million each in a settlement with Duke. The university spent more than $100 million between legal fees, settlement costs, and other expenses to move on from the ignominy and preserve its “brand.”

https://www.npr.org/2016/03/10/469897698/fantastic-lies-lays-out-2006-duke-lacrosse-rape-case

https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/16/justice/durham-lacrosse-scandal-settlement/index.html

Durham has settled a lawsuit filed by members of the Duke University men's 2006 lacrosse team who were exonerated of sexually assaulting an exotic dancer in 2006, the North Carolina city said in a statement Friday.
The city has settled with former players David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, who were wrongly accused of a sexual assault at a party.
As part of the settlement, Durham will make a one-time grant of $50,000 to the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission.
"As the City has maintained throughout, it believes that its police officers had an obligation to investigate the allegations made by Crystal Mangum in 2006 and that no police officer nor any other City employee engaged in improper conduct," the statement said . "The former District Attorney, Mike Nifong, was not a City employee, and Mr. Nifong was subsequently convicted of criminal contempt and disbarred for his actions."
Nifong also spent a day in jail for his handling of the case.
The charges against the three men forced the cancellation of the team's highly anticipated 2006 season and cost coach Mike Pressler his job.
In April 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper reviewed the case and exonerated the three men, declaring that the charges never should have been brought against them.
"When Attorney General Roy Cooper announced his decision ... the City expressed its concurrence in Attorney General Cooper's decision," the statement said. "Today, the City reaffirms that it fully concurs with the Attorney General's decision to dismiss the charges, and with his conclusion that Mr. Evans, Mr. Seligmann, and Mr. Finnerty were innocent of the charges for which they were indicted."
Duke University and the three players reached an undisclosed settlement shortly after the charges were dropped in 2007.
So far they are lucky. No slander/liable lawsuits. Of course that could change if the Dems force the issue of impeachment. Then the accusers will be forced to show their evidence (or lack thereof), their political affiliation, and true motives questioned. I am sure the Democrats will turn on the accusers to protect their own hides- claiming to be the victims of lies, and deception.
 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1  Sunshine  replied to  Ronin2 @6    one month ago
The left just doesn't get it. These fraudulent allegations of sexual assault are weakening the claims of those who were legitimately- especially if they are against anyone associated with politics.

They get it, problem is they don't care.  Once they are done using someone for their political gain they are discarded like a piece of trash. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Sunshine @6.1    one month ago
piece of trash. 

Well, someone has to throw the trash out.

 
 
 
Kathleen
7  Kathleen    one month ago

He is on the Supreme Court and that’s that.

 
 
 
bbl-1
8  bbl-1    one month ago

"I like beer."  And.  "Do you black out."  And all of that with a sneer.  What more could one want?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
8.1  XDm9mm  replied to  bbl-1 @8    one month ago
"I like beer."  And.  "Do you black out."  And all of that with a sneer.  What more could one want?

How about;

1- FACTS   You know, exactly who, what, where, when.

2- Witnesses(1)  People other than the accuser who actually witnessed the incident and are not recounting memories they heard from others.

3- Witnesses(2)  People that are named as witnesses that can actually corroborate the account of the "victim" and not indicate when questioned that they have no idea what the accuser is talking about and have no memory of any such incident.

 
 
 
Tacos!
9  Tacos!    one month ago

No one cares if you can prove anything anymore. They just need to get the accusation on Anderson Cooper and then bludgeon the poor victim with endless hearings, subpoenas and threats of impeachment.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
10  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Even the New York Times reporters who wrote the book were shocked Democratic candidates used their book as a basis for an impeachment call. The Democrats are unhinged. As Kate Kelly said "People saw what they wanted to see before learning any of the facts, or didn't even make much of an effort to pay attention to the facts."

 
 
 
lib50
11  lib50    4 weeks ago

When you force a flawed lifetime appointment on a court that specifically impacts lives, don't expect a free ride. Conservatives want to slut shame and blame victims and disbelieve multiple accusations.  THAT WERE NOT INVESTIGATED.  Why would anybody expect women, the group most impacted and disrespected by Kavanaugh AND the gop, to allow him to go on with impunity?  If you pick a dick, expect problems.  And they won't go away, nor should they.  He won't be as lucky as Clarence Thomas.

 
 
 
bugsy
11.1  bugsy  replied to  lib50 @11    4 weeks ago
slut shame and blame victims and disbelieve multiple accusations.

You mean like the Lt Governor of Virginia? Or the democratic Congressional slush fund that paid off accusers and those accused are still in office?

 
 
 
lib50
11.1.1  lib50  replied to  bugsy @11.1    4 weeks ago

That's the difference between me and the you.  I don't give either side a pass on this.  I want dems accountable too.  I don't go around defending people I might otherwise agree with just because they are assholes to the 'other side'. 

I love young generations of women, they won't be having this crap - and they are younger than Kavanaugh and most republicans. This may be a shitshow of misogyny, but the long term picture looks much better.  Kavanaugh may not survive that. 

 
 
 
bugsy
11.1.2  bugsy  replied to  lib50 @11.1.1    4 weeks ago

Where did I give anyone a pass? I simply pointed out your hypocrisy by posting this:

Conservatives want to slut shame and blame victims and disbelieve multiple accusations.

I've never seen you call out liberals for any of their wrongdoings.

 
 
 
lib50
11.1.3  lib50  replied to  bugsy @11.1.2    4 weeks ago

Then you don't pay attention.  Which liberals slut shame and victim blame?  I'll be happy to address them because I hold standards.  Equal standards.  You know, that thing when you expect everybody to follow the same set of rules regardless of ideology.  It helps not to belong to any party.

 
 
 
CB
11.1.4  CB   replied to  lib50 @11.1.3    4 weeks ago

And, one can belong to a party and hold to standards. I am 'bout to call Nancy Pelosi's office and let her have it on what the ___ is going on with the mealy-mouthing around in Washington, D.C. Do something or get new committee chairman. There is too much noise and not enough action—one way or the other.  It reminds me of the Tea Party 'era' and the battle over the Affordable Care Act - what showed up the democrats was "messy" television coverage across two long hot argumentative years! People simply wanted an end to the sounds and fury.

Once again - we have a situation where everybody is running around with hair of fire and no one is able to 'douse' any strands!

Do something - whatever it is. Fix it one way or the other and move on! We'll deal with the fallout as it comes: good, bad, or indifferent.

See @5.2.5 for Nancy's offices if you wish to join in. (Smile.)

 
 
 
lib50
11.1.5  lib50  replied to  CB @11.1.4    4 weeks ago

Oh, everybody hears from me!  I tweeted something to Pelosi last week that included an f bomb, and it only contained 3 words!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  lib50 @11.1.3    4 weeks ago

Which liberals slut shame and victim blame?

Their last nominee for President. 

 
 
 
CB
11.1.7  CB   replied to  lib50 @11.1.5    4 weeks ago

Oh good. I just left messages on the Washington D.C. and San Francisco lines. Her lines let you take as long as you want to share a comment - and I gave some good, concise, clear messaging: Do something! Trump looks to be winning, even when he is clearly losing and obstructing the House! And, so on.

 
 
 
CB
11.2  CB   replied to  lib50 @11    4 weeks ago

"Lordy" I hope they won't go away. As a matter of principle, democratic women, ought to demand the Congress "that can't properly investigate" —start the investigation up now! I remember them saying they would when the 'flim-flam' happened. Why should this nation be stolen into conservatism? And done so by stealing a judge through hook and crook methods? Shame on conservatives. There is no moral ground for them to stand on atknown brag about!

Lib50, thank you for helping to refocus my mind of this 'hot' topic! (Smile.)

 
 
 
MUVA
11.3  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @11    4 weeks ago

I know Ruth should have never been put on the court.

 
 
 
lib50
11.3.1  lib50  replied to  MUVA @11.3    4 weeks ago

The men of SCOTUS are probably butthurt that RBG will be more than a footnote in history books. 

 
 
 
MUVA
11.3.2  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @11.3.1    4 weeks ago

She will only be a footnote. 

 
 
 
WallyW
11.3.3  WallyW  replied to  MUVA @11.3.2    4 weeks ago

Trump will likely replace her with Amy Coney Barrett.

 
 
 
CB
11.3.4  CB   replied to  MUVA @11.3.2    4 weeks ago

All of this resentment and political sniping of each other is tiresome and wrong. In the words of Joan Rivers (Girl, we recognize you today): "Oh, America grow up."

We need "all of us"!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



Tacos!
FLYNAVY1


25 visitors