Brett Kavanaugh now under FBI investigation

[Cry Havoc]

The Trump isn't us line is wearing thin. The whole trend of the GOP for the last 25 years led to him.

100%, although I would argue since 1960 and the Southern' Strategy.

You can't claim Trump is independent of the party when he just pulled 60 million votes and beat the odds to do so.

[Cry Havoc]

Democratic is party responsible for Trump too. If they hadn't gone so politically correct and gone insane with safe space etc. a guy like Trump wouldn't have appeal to so many people that like the fact that he doesn't care.

And I say that as someone that can't stand him. But I know liberals that voted for him precisely because what left run amok is doing to his party.

"Left run amok". lol okay

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao you just tried to compare a prospective representative from the Bronx to the president of the entire United States.

So many backflips....

didn't notice the plural?

[Winehole23]

I think it's actually the whole trend of the Dems that led to Trump.I agree with that.

Both statements can be true at once.

[cd98]

"Left run amok". lol okay

Yes, when you have riots on a university campus because someone is going to speak there, that is run amok. When comedians say they can no longer do shows on college campuses because of political correctness, that is a problem.

[cd98]

Trump is the complete opposite of the Republican party in most ways. I think he's done irreparable damage to it. He's a cult of personality too. There is no Trump movement. Just people that like him for some strange reason. But he's not based on ideology. He'll change his ideology depending on his audience. His followers like him because he seems like he always wins. By beating Hillary, he fed into that 100%. That's why for him, everything is about whether it is considered a win or a loss. That's everything to him. He cares nothing about the impact of his policies. He only cares if they are perceived as a win. And when they are an obvious loss, he spins it into a win or does the whole fake news thing.

[Cry Havoc]

Yes, when you have riots on a university campus because someone is going to speak there, that is run amok. When comedians say they can no longer do shows on college campuses because of political correctness, that is a problem.

I assume you're referring to Cal?

[Spurminator]

Democratic is party responsible for Trump too. If they hadn't gone so politically correct and gone insane with safe space etc. a guy like Trump wouldn't have appeal to so many people that like the fact that he doesn't care.

And I say that as someone that can't stand him. But I know liberals that voted for him precisely because what left run amok is doing to his party.

I'm liberal, but I'm mad about vandalism at California Berkeley so I'm going to vote for deregulation, massive tax cuts, conservative lifetime court appointments, the erosion of reproductive rights, the erosion of voting rights, reduction and aggressive enforcement of immigration, reversal of prison reforms, and NRA rhetoric delivered by a con artist.

I'm not saying you're wrong that there are people like that, I'm saying those people are fucking morons. Riots and protests on campus aren't magically defeated by having conservatives in power. You might as well say you're voting for Republicans to spite Colin Kaepernick.

[Pavlov]

didn't notice the plural?No, because you posted a possessive.

[Pavlov]

Yes, when you have riots on a university campus because someone is going to speak there, that is run amok. When comedians say they can no longer do shows on college campuses because of political correctness, that is a problem.lol riots.

[RandomGuy]

Because you can't continue to support the current GOP without admitting to massive hypocrisy, and the latest right curve by the party has made that all too obvious.

It's a racist, virtue-signaling, fetid pile of crap that is infested by criminals and has a cartoon character behind the wheel. It bows to the rich and invokes the name of their "religion" to prop up multi-billionaires.

For decades it's been seething under the surface, but at least has paid token service to the average American. Now it's a clown car of hatred and boot-licking to big business.

The logic just isn't there anymore, unless you contort it to say that EVERYONE is like this. That's the only way you can salve your soul and still feel like you somehow have the moral high ground.

+1

The party of rich white guys, by rich white guys and for rich white guys. Everyone else, women, scary brown people, jews, queers, poor people in general, matter not one whittle or one jot.

[RandomGuy]

Just as the 25 year trend of the Democrats has led to the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's.

Fucking awesome, in my opinion. The open class warfare of the rich on the poor for the last 30 years and massive wealth transfers to the rich from the labor of middle class and poor need to stop.

The economy has come to serve one tiny, tiny group of people and that is shitty, and no way to run a stable democracy.

It is about time someone had the stones to say what needs to be said, and actually stand up for regular people.

[CosmicCowboy]

No, because you posted a possessive.

Well pardon my grammatical faux pas. The intention was to point out the unmistakable socialist trend of the democratic party. The parties have become too polarized right/left. It's not safe for any politician to be middle of the road and work across the aisle anymore.

[RandomGuy]

Trump is the complete opposite of the Republican party in most ways. I think he's done irreparable damage to it. He's a cult of personality too. There is no Trump movement. Just people that like him for some strange reason. But he's not based on ideology. He'll change his ideology depending on his audience. His followers like him because he seems like he always wins. By beating Hillary, he fed into that 100%. That's why for him, everything is about whether it is considered a win or a loss. That's everything to him. He cares nothing about the impact of his policies. He only cares if they are perceived as a win. And when they are an obvious loss, he spins it into a win or does the whole fake news thing.

Mostly agree.

[Spurs Homer]

I'm not afraid of the FBI investigating. I'm just not for delaying the vote so the Democrats can try and block the confirmation before the midterms. Just like you don't care about Ford's allegations, you just want the Democrats to block the confirmation. If you cared about rape, you'd have been condemning the democratic part for the last, what 40 years, for being the party of Kennedy and the Party of Clinton.


If you cared about delays you must be furious at the GOP and how they handled the Merrick Garland nomination?

[Cry Havoc]

Well pardon my grammatical faux pas. The intention was to point out the unmistakable socialist trend of the democratic party. The parties have become too polarized right/left. It's not safe for any politician to be middle of the road and work across the aisle anymore.

It's not safe because there IS no middle of the aisle when one party advocates for racism, bigotry, and inhumane treatment of human beings.

There is no, "We should only be half-humane to certain groups of people". It's all or nothing.

The Democratic party hasn't moved THAT much since the 80s. Some areas it's moved left, others it's moved to the right, actually.

But the GOP? They've swerved so far to the right it's hard to recognize them anymore, at least the core constituents.

I mean, you actually used to support science. Now, unless there's an immediate benefit, you call scientists a bunch of liberal hacks and do everything you can to stop research that could improve the lives of people.

You've gone from a party tinged with racism to one that's seething with bile and gatekeeping ANYONE that disagrees with the hard party line.

[Cry Havoc]

Mostly agree.

I don't agree. I grew up in rural America and Trump absolutely represents a lot of the racism and hatred I saw strewn across America's "heartland". I don't think he's an anomaly, or if he is he's a particularly representative one.

I do think the GOP and it's constituents in the future are going to do EVERYTHING in their power to disown Trump, but only in retrospect, because as the boomer generation dies off this presidency is going to be hung (rightfully) around their neck as a fucking anchor, showing how much they were willing to sell down the river to accumulate power.

[boutons_deux]

"Trump is the complete opposite of the Republican party in most ways."

Trash is forcing no one in the Repug party to back down, forcing no one to suck up to him, forcing no one to be compliant in their silence.

The Repugs have been fucking up America and Americans by fighting the Class War on the side of Capital vs Labor, of the oligarcy vs the non-oligarchy, on the side of white males vs. non-white, non-males.

Trash is a symptom of the Repug/conservative willful dysfunction, not the cause. He's not, in policy, in practice, anomalous, he's standard-issue billionaire fighting with other billionaires to continue to rig America in their favor.

[cd98]

If you cared about delays you must be furious at the GOP and how they handled the Merrick Garland nomination?

I agree that Garland got a raw deal. That's one of the consequences for losing the Senate, though. I'd be more upset if the Republicans hatched a story with no evidence that could not be proved or disproved to destroy the man's reputation.

I do believe in the textualist approach to the constitution, though I agree that there is much to debate on both sides. That's why I favor Kavanaugh more. But I also agree that those issues make up like 5% of the court's docket. Most of the work they do comes from appeals on interpreting a provision of the tax code or other stuff that never hits the papers. That's why Garland, even if he changes the outcome on social issues (which I feel should be a role of the legislature), he's still well qualified to do the job and should've been confirmed if he got a vote.

[baseline bum]

Oh Bullshit. Trump is a narcissistic idiot and he only got elected because Hillary was worse. I sincerely hope a legitimate candidate runs against him in the 2020 primary so he can be one and done.

I don't buy it. Trump and Bannon correctly identified that the GOP base wanted a nationalist leader. That the Tea Party's wins were more about a scary negro in the White House than they were for conservatism. Trump is no conservative and yet he has an 88% approval rating with GOP voters. His entire early campaign was about Obama's birth certificate and his later campaign was about lies and saying racist shit and then explaining that he wasn't going to try to be PC. He has congressional Republicans scared as hell to cross him because they'll get primaried. The donor class of the GOP may be conservative but the voters are straight nativist. Kasich may run against him in 2020 but no way he doesn't get massacred.

[Spurs Homer]

I agree that Garland got a raw deal. That's one of the consequences for losing the Senate, though. I'd be more upset if the Republicans hatched a story with no evidence that could not be proved or disproved to destroy the man's reputation.


gtfo with your conspiracy bs - this accuser is more than credible on her own - for reasons already stated - if Kavanaugh is clean he will demand an FBI investigation or he is just as corrupt as the pussy grabber in chief.

[baseline bum]

Just as the 25 year trend of the Democrats has led to the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's.

The Democrats going too far to the left is a tired meme when they nominated Clinton for president.

[Spurminator]

Just as the 25 year trend of the Democrats has led to the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's.

Wait, did I miss her getting nominated for President of the United States?

[rmt]

The Democratic party hasn't moved THAT much since the 80s. Some areas it's moved left, others it's moved to the right, actually.

But the GOP? They've swerved so far to the right it's hard to recognize them anymore, at least the core constituents.



I respectfully disagree with the above. I think that the GOP is pretty much where the Dems used to be in the 80s/90s. Weren't many of the positions of Bill/Hillary regarding marriage, borders, etc. (in the 90s) where the GOP is now (or at least closer to them than the current Dems)? IMO, the entire country has move left (what I guess most of you call progress) - with the GOP going from right to more center (where Trump is) and the Dems going left toward open borders, socialism, etc.

[baseline bum]

I respectfully disagree with the above. I think that the GOP is pretty much where the Dems used to be in the 80s/90s. Aren't many of the positions of Bill/Hillary regarding marriage, borders, etc. where the GOP is now (or at least closer to them than the current Dems)? IMO, the entire country has move left (what I guess most of you call progress) - with the GOP going from right to more center (where Trump is) and the Dems going left toward open borders, socialism, etc.

:lmao Fuck off Wild Cobra

[Cry Havoc]

I respectfully disagree with the above. I think that the GOP is pretty much where the Dems used to be in the 80s/90s. Aren't many of the positions of Bill/Hillary regarding marriage, borders, etc. where the GOP is now (or at least closer to them than the current Dems)? IMO, the entire country has move left (what I guess most of you call progress) - with the GOP going from right to more center (where Trump is) and the Dems going left toward open borders, socialism, etc.

Trump is center.

Fucking lol.

Trump is center for the KKK perhaps.

[cd98]

The Democrats going too far to the left is a tired meme when they nominated Clinton for president.

The base wanted Bernie. The Super Delegates forced Hillary. The Democrat base is shifting left. If you can't tell, maybe that's because you think left is normal.

[baseline bum]

The base wanted Bernie. The Super Delegates forced Hillary. The Democrat base is shifting left. If you can't tell, maybe that's because you think left is normal.

Clinton got 3.7 million votes more than Sanders did in the primaries.

[cd98]

Trump is center.

Fucking lol.

Trump is center for the KKK perhaps.

I agree that Trump is not center. Trump is not Right either. He's nothing. He's whatever sounds good. He attended the committee meeting on immigration and agreed with Diane Feinstein on everything. His handlers had to tell him that he's not supposed to agree with her on everything.

[cd98]

Clinton got 3.7 million votes more than Sanders did in the primaries.

By the end, yes, when it was clear what was happening. Are you telling me that Bernie didn't have a substantial following among the base?

[baseline bum]

By the end, yes, when it was clear what was happening. Are you telling me that Bernie didn't have a substantial following among the base?

Clinton won 56-44 in the vote. Give me a fucking break with your lies painting the Democrats as a far left party.

[Pavlov]

The base wanted Bernie. The Super Delegates forced Hillary. The Democrat base is shifting left. If you can't tell, maybe that's because you think left is normal.Lying is normal for you.

[rmt]

Maybe someone could tell BB that I'm not WC - I have no idea why he thinks so.

[pgardn]

WH might not opine, but I will: Because she wants people to believe her.

Fairly simple. WH was right, that polygraphs are not at all reliable though.

Can't blame the woman for wanting to prove herself.

This is what I was thinking.
Its more of an anxiety test imo.

So it took this and her apparent sincere attitude and place in society for her to even get a whiff of a chance to give present her accusation. If she is black and poor, but was at that party (hardly; Georgetown prep...), no chance.

[pgardn]

Trump is center.

Fucking lol.

Trump is center for the KKK perhaps.

Maybe There was a time.
But not now.

[Cry Havoc]

I agree that Trump is not center. Trump is not Right either. He's nothing. He's whatever sounds good. He attended the committee meeting on immigration and agreed with Diane Feinstein on everything. His handlers had to tell him that he's not supposed to agree with her on everything.

I don't care about what he says.

What are his policies? His policies are far right of center. The people he promotes are far right of center. The people he associates with are far right of center.

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7208573/vcGraph.0.svg

The idea that because he's a swirling mass of confused grease and lard who routinely contradicts himself doesn't suddenly erase the decisions he's made. He's far right and promotes far right people.

Unless you want to make a case for his appointments who are routinely anti-science? Do you think they're "nothing", too?

[ducks]

Marshals Investigating Threats Against Kavanaugh

[baseline bum]

I don't care about what he says.

What are his policies? His policies are far right of center. The people he promotes are far right of center. The people he associates with are far right of center.

Words speak louder than action for cd98. He's the Jeff Flake or Ben Sasse of the forum.

[DarrinS]

Some hardcore cases of TDS in here :lol

[baseline bum]

Some hardcore cases of TDS in here :lol

Especially the one calling Trump center.

[boutons_deux]

Brett Kavanaugh has a history of lying about stuff. A lot. Under oath (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/20/1797349/-Reminder-Brett-Kavanaugh-has-a-history-of-lying-about-stuff-A-lot-Under-oath)

worth reiterating that Republicans have been covering up for him since his nomination, releasing a small fraction of the documentation behind his political career.

That small fraction, about 7 percent of the total, has already proven dicey for him with

a handful of examples of out-and-out perjury (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/6/1793763/-You-want-Kavanaugh-perjury-Here-you-go) rising up.

Beyond parts of his testimony where

he clearly was not telling the truth,

there are those areas

where he'd have to be a total idiot or amnesiac to maintain his claims.

The Washington Post's fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, has an exhaustive examination (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/20/brett-kavanaughs-unlikely-story-about-democrats-stolen-documents/?utm_term=.c3792a75fdf8) of one of those claims:

that Kavanaugh never had any idea at all while he was in the Bush White House,

coordinating judicial nominations,

that the information he was getting from Republican Judiciary staffer Manny Miranda

was stolen from committee Democrats, 4,670 files taken over an 18-month period from 2001 to 2003.

t (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/20/1797349/-Reminder-Brett-Kavanaugh-has-a-history-of-lying-about-stuff-A-lot-Under-oath)hat he never received documents that appeared to be stolen or obtained in an 'untoward' manner," Kessler concludes, "defy logic" and "strains credulity."And this isn't very flattering to Kavanaugh:

"It reminds us of Sergeant Schultz in the 1960s TV show 'Hogan’s Heroes'—'I see nothing! I hear nothing! I know nothing!'" Ouch.

The "best-case scenario is that Kavanaugh,

who is up for a seat on the nation’s highest court, has a glaring lack of curiosity or a superficial level of discernment,"

"The worst-case scenario

is that he has been feigning ignorance since his first confirmation hearing in the Senate in April 2004,

which was held after the Senate sergeant-at-arms had released his report documenting Miranda’s serial theft."

Kessler says "feigning ignorance,"

the rest of the world says "lying."

Whether he is stupid or duplicitous, though, he should not be on the Supreme Court.

It's why

there has to be a real investigation into his accuser’s claims,

not the sham (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2018/9/20/1797303/-Republican-staff-put-to-rest-any-doubt-that-investigation-of-Kavanaugh-is-a-farce) that we're seeing from the committee. But it's also

why Republicans are not going to let that happen.

They already know he's going to lie about it.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/20/1797349/-Reminder-Brett-Kavanaugh-has-a-history-of-lying-about-stuff-A-lot-Under-oath

====================

Brett Kavanaugh’s unlikely story about Democrats’ stolen documents

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/20/brett-kavanaughs-unlikely-story-about-democrats-stolen-documents/?utm_term=.ad0cf3db4278

[cd98]

Words speak louder than action for cd98. He's the Jeff Flake or Ben Sasse of the forum.

I don't disagree that he doesn't at times have nationalist people in his ear. I'm just saying he's not a true believer. And he's subject to switch directions at any time. But I think people here see everything through the prism of nationalism, and I don't think that's it either. I would say that neither justice is a far right justice, even though they are conservative. And I would also say the tax cuts are a traditional Republican policy. Tariffs are traditionally a pro-labor policy, which is more of a Democrat thing. Many of his advisers are military guys that are not nationalists. So I do think some of this stuff is overblown. And I don't think a Vox chart proves anything.

[Reck]

Lol cd98

All you have to do is look at the places where Bernie won. Mostly white majority states and ones where they relied on Caucuses where turnout is always very low. Which should have been a sign she was a terrible candidate to begin with. It showed in the general elections.

the right loves to say the DNC rigged it for her which is laughable. Favored her? Yeah

magnipulated votes? Lol

[cd98]

Clinton won 56-44 in the vote. Give me a fucking break with your lies painting the Democrats as a far left party.

You're the first Democrat that I've heard that disavowed Bernie.

[Pavlov]

You're the first Democrat that I've heard that disavowed Bernie.Bernie isn't a Democrat.

[pgardn]

You're the first Democrat that I've heard that disavowed Bernie.

The longest serving independent evah...

[RandomGuy]

A psychology professor in California? If anything, this probably enhanced her career. If in fact there actually were death threats they should definitely be investigated and the idiots arrested. Hopefully she can remember when and where she was when she heard them.

Scummy thing to say.

She is lying because of her profession/location. Just for personal advantage?

You are a shitty human being for thinking or saying this.

The reality for her, as with so many other women will be one of ruin. That is one of the main reasons why so many don't come forward.

smh. Lost the last shred of respect I had for you here. The last shred.

[Fabbs]

You're the first Democrat that I've heard that disavowed Bernie.
Wasn't he burned out of a bunch of votes in NY?
Their assanine "you must declare Demon or Repug 9 months before the primary" or some shit like that?

[Cry Havoc]

Scummy thing to say.

She is lying because of her profession/location. Just for personal advantage?

You are a shitty human being for thinking or saying this.

The reality for her, as with so many other women will be one of ruin. That is one of the main reasons why so many don't come forward.

Fucking scumball.

Yep. Pathetic.

[boutons_deux]

I really think CC has become mentally, emotionally damaged, just like his idol Trash.

[baseline bum]

You're the first Democrat that I've heard that disavowed Bernie.

I didn't disavow Bernie. He'd be my second choice for the 2020 nomination, behind Warren. But the Democrats have always tried to be a big tent party instead of a liberal one so I don't know that it happens.

[Chris]

1042906719251247104

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

[Spurminator]

Plenty of Bernie votes were anti-Hillary votes.

[Chris]

1042922560156041217

[Chris]

1042893987747713024
1042894496772628480
1042894953284886528
1042895504655441922
1042896415935148034
1042896921759809536
1042897402259222528
1042898321877200897
1042898896484290561
1042899338505138177
1042899628952354822
1042900050605694984
1042900455918116864
1042900718829617152

[spurraider21]

:lmao dragging poor chris garrett into this

[Spurminator]

I knew it would either be TSA or Chris that would tweet that wall of Whelan tweets everyone's laughing at.

[baseline bum]

1042893987747713024
1042894496772628480
1042894953284886528
1042895504655441922
1042896415935148034
1042896921759809536
1042897402259222528
1042898321877200897
1042898896484290561
1042899338505138177
1042899628952354822
1042900050605694984
1042900455918116864
1042900718829617152

tl;dr

[Spurminator]

Here's what he said, basically:


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiF08nj7crdAhUQOK0KHVJwDAkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fgallery%2FZESV9&psig=AOvVaw1xuf6uMuwjAc4jowNJm6Nr&ust=1537576719398964
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj62KH-7crdAhVJC6wKHX_gA7MQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fknowyourmeme.com%2Fphotos%2F1229 977-its-always-sunny-in-philadelphia&psig=AOvVaw1xuf6uMuwjAc4jowNJm6Nr&ust=1537576719398964https://memegenerator.net/img/images/15956180/charlie-day-conspiracy.jpg

[Chris]

1042938068427259904

[Pavlov]

1042893987747713024
1042894496772628480
1042894953284886528
1042895504655441922
1042896415935148034
1042896921759809536
1042897402259222528
1042898321877200897
1042898896484290561
1042899338505138177
1042899628952354822
1042900050605694984
1042900455918116864
1042900718829617152
:lol gaslighting via twitter

[Spurminator]

1042944517438152704

[Chris]

"INSANE!!!"

What was insane about it?

[Chris]

1042944354715721728

[ElNono]

Are there really political ads going on TV asking for this guy's confirmation? Somebody was just telling me about it. That's fucking repugnant. Nothing screams special interests like that, and it's supposed not to be a political job.

[boutons_deux]

Ford, traumatized, can't remember stuff

so-called "judge" K denies it

sloppy seconds-in-waiting-but-blotto-drunk Judge refuses to talk

but whelan got the floor plan! :lol

[Chris]

1042946264709701632

[Spurminator]

They're paying for their bail? Well that's practically an incentive to get arrested!

:cry :cry SOROS :cry :cry

[cd98]

1042944517438152704

Agreed. It basically just accused someone else with the same flimsy evidence. Maybe it would create a reasonable doubt in a trial, but does nothing to move the needle on whether the allegation is true or not.

[ElNono]

:cry :cry SOROS :cry :cry

ding

[koriwhat]

this lady ford sounds like a fucking nut. we'll see how all this bs plays out. fuck the dem party and all their back handed tactics by their losers in charge.

[spurraider21]

^voted for al gore and john kerry

[Chris]

1042738894880485376

[Spurminator]

:lmao

Triggered by Joy Behar.

What a fucking meltdown. Just stop, dude. Go outside.

[ElNono]

https://i.imgur.com/P6XduSJ.gif

[Chris]

:lmao

Triggered by Joy Behar.

What a fucking meltdown. Just stop, dude. Go outside.

lol "triggered"

lol "meltdown"

lol forum cop says "go outside"

[Chris]

1042956529765216256

[DarrinS]

It’s a good thing his cock-blocking buddy, Mark Judge, started going WWE on them. That’s the only reason she’s still alive. True story.

[koriwhat]

^voted for al gore and john kerry

actually i didn't because i didn't vote as an 18 yr old which was circa 2000 (Bush vs. Gore)... then there's Kerry (2004) which would've made me 22 yrs old. i can't remember voting during that presidential race however the next two i did vote in. if i did it would've been for kerry just because fuck bush but fuck kerry too! the next two votes i cast were and will always be a decision i wish i never made but whatever.

as well, what's it matter? your jabs are as weak as you are.

[ducks]

bkeyser
@b_keyser
·
1h
Just a guess, but there are rumors that she authored a very similar letter about Neil Gorsuch, also a Prep grad from the same era

[Spurminator]

Joy Behar

[Spurs Homer]

GOP & Kavanaugh & the Sexual Assaulter in chief - still running for their lives -away from an FBI investigation.

Here is what I would advise Dr. Ford's attorneys to do:
Tell Grassley to think really hard and make a choice.
#1) Call the Sexual Assaulter in chief and tell him it is in his best interest to authorize the FBI investigation.
#2) If you refuse - my client will still testify - which will be bad news for you.
#3) After the testimony - which is rigged - and a sham w/out an FBI investigation - you will still confirm K.

#4) My client will (after this is all over - and because you refused the FBI investigation) go to Montgomery County, Maryland - and file a criminal affidavit against your boy and then you will have the first SC Justice to be investigated for an attempted rape and your sham committee will pay the political price.

If Grassley is smart (he's not) he will do the FBI thing and hope K is cleared. He won't so it will be another investigation and his committee will look even worse if the Montgomery Co. investigation finds what the GOP was hiding.

[Cry Havoc]

this lady ford sounds like a fucking nut. we'll see how all this bs plays out. fuck the dem party and all their back handed tactics by their losers in charge.

Yeah, a doctor at a respected university, has worked at Stanford University, with multiple publications in her field. WHAT A CRAZY PERSON.

What the fuck do you signifies anything like "well she's a nut"? What doctor from Stanford doesn't meet the universal criteria for sanity of calf tats?

[DarrinS]

I want to hear her story.

[ducks]

I want to hear her story.

Was in letter
Was in news last 72 hours

[DarrinS]

Was in letter
Was in news last 72 hours

I want to hear it from her.

[ducks]

She does not have enough balls to show up

[ducks]

WATCH: Megyn Kelly Slams Kavanaugh's Accuser For Not Testifying: 'She’s Not In Charge Of The U.S. Senate
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36122/watch-megyn-kelly-slams-kavanaughs-accuser-not-hank-berrien?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand

[Chris]

She does not have enough balls to show up

She's no Joy Behar.

[Cry Havoc]

She does not have enough balls to show up

:lol Weak.

[boutons_deux]

South Carolina GOP congressman tries to 'lighten up' the Kavanaugh assault debate with an Abe Lincoln groping joke (http://theweek.com/speedreads/797286/south-carolina-gop-congressman-tries-lighten-kavanaugh-assault-debate-abe-lincoln-groping-joke)

"Did y'all hear this latest late-breaking news from the Kavanaugh hearings?" Norman asked.

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg came out that she was groped by Abraham Lincoln."

http://theweek.com/speedreads/797286/south-carolina-gop-congressman-tries-lighten-kavanaugh-assault-debate-abe-lincoln-groping-joke

[benefactor]

She does not have enough balls to show up
Shut up, stupid.

[101A]

Yeah, a doctor at a respected university, has worked at Stanford University, with multiple publications in her field. WHAT A CRAZY PERSON.

What the fuck do you signifies anything like "well she's a nut"? What doctor from Stanford doesn't meet the universal criteria for sanity of calf tats?

How many psych profs do you know? They're all nuts. But I've never met this particular one.

However, I'd be fine with the Kavanaugh nomination going down. We have NO diversity on the SC - at least the diversity that matters. EVERY justice is Ivy-league.

[boutons_deux]

K is not a real judge, he's the oligarchy's ideal extreme right wing, LYING rat fucker, as his history of political hacking, rat fucking, comments and rulings have proven.

K spent $3M under Starr going after the Vince Foster fairy tale AFTER it had been investigated and closed as bullshit.

K improves diversity because he not Harvard/Yale?

:lol G M A F B he will never diverge from whatever rulings, laws that the oligarchy wants.

[Winehole23]

"INSANE!!!"

What was insane about it?an old buddy of Kavanaugh's muddying the waters with sheer speculation that someone else might have done it and naming that person on Twitter.

does blaming an unrelated middle school teacher utterly without evidence work for you as "exculpatory evidence", Chris (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656)?

do you think Whelan helped Kavanaugh or hurt him the way he laid it out there?

why did you delete your post?

[cd98]

It will be interesting to see how this thing plays out. One thing I think is strange. Ford wants Kavanaugh to testify first. Why? That means he can't respond to her allegations. That feels like a set up and like it is a playbook from Democrats rather than a victim coming forward. I do not doubt that the allegations could be true. But therein lies the problem. The allegations could also be deemed well-crafted to hit Kavanaugh without having any evidence to back it up and then require him to prove a negative, which is impossible. Then, every action that Ford has taken has been in concert with the Democrats trying to stall the confirmation. It just looks more and more political, which makes me think more and more that it is a hoax.

We'll see what unfolds and whether Republicans have some trump card or not. But I've seen nothing to legitimize these claims to this point, and I think if something doesn't come by Monday, they should proceed to the confirmation. Ford has had her entire life since 15, but especially since July to gather circumstantial evidence and to name the unidentified girl and to identify the house or at least fill in the blank on who's house it was, who took her there, what she did after she left, etc. If you can't fill those essential terms, then you don't have a valid allegation and it should be ignored. You don't need the FBI to investigate for her to fill the gaps in her story.

[Winehole23]

what do you think of the Ed Whelan tweet, cd98?

[101A]

The goal of the K opponents right now is to get Mark Judge in front of Democrat senators for questioning. They want desperately to be able to quote his book on camera. Then they can equate Kavanaugh with that hedonistic, misogynistic trope. Republicans want to keep him off the stand. This is, IMO, about that book.

[101A]

what do you think of the Ed Whelan tweet, cd98 (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=16113)?

Seems legit. I'm convinced.

The doppelganger should testify.

[Spurminator]

why did you delete your post?

Looks like Whelan did.

1043117304152817664

[cd98]

what do you think of the Ed Whelan tweet, cd98 (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=16113)?

I mentioned this on an earlier post. I thought it was wrong especially because he pointed the finger at a person that has not been named in the allegations and dragged him into the affair. I did see that he took down the post and apologized. Is that the explosive trump card that the GOP had? I don't know, but if it is, then I would say it fell flat.

That said, I don't think it pushes the narrative one way or the other. It was just a reckless attempt to get clear the name of his friend.

[DarrinS]

Trump's tweets today aren't helping, either. Just stop already.

[cd98]

The goal of the K opponents right now is to get Mark Judge in front of Democrat senators for questioning. They want desperately to be able to quote his book on camera. Then they can equate Kavanaugh with that hedonistic, misogynistic trope. Republicans want to keep him off the stand. This is, IMO, about that book.

Isn't that the same as trying to paint a woman as a liar about her sexual assault claim by painting a picture of her as a slut? That said, it's an effective argument for convincing people that want to believe, and I agree that is the ploy.

[101A]

Trump's tweets today aren't helping, either. Just stop already.

Copy and paste this for just about any issue, any day. But he IS president. He obviously understands something about those tweets, and the buttons they press that we do not.

[101A]

Isn't that the same as trying to paint a woman as a liar about her sexual assault claim by painting a picture of her as a slut? That said, it's an effective argument for convincing people that want to believe, and I agree that is the ploy.

It is similar, yes. I can't imagine, in any kind of setting, having my freaking best friend from high school on the stand, having written a book about high school experiences, testifying about ME?!?! Fuck that. I would not only not get confirmed for whatever, I'd probably get strung up, banished, tarred and feathered. Dumbass would get tripped up, turned around and tell EVERYTHING!!!

[101A]

It is similar, yes. I can't imagine, in any kind of setting, having my freaking best friend from high school on the stand, having written a book about high school experiences, testifying about ME?!?! Fuck that. I would not only not get confirmed for whatever, I'd probably get strung up, banished, tarred and feathered. Dumbass would get tripped up, turned around and tell EVERYTHING!!!


Should probably be an additional protection on the 5th amendment for this shit, tbh.

[Winehole23]

Seems legit. I'm convinced.

The doppelganger should testify.:tu

[leemajors]

Trump's tweets today aren't helping, either. Just stop already.

He can't.

[cd98]

Trump's tweets today aren't helping, either. Just stop already.

I'm not a Trump fan and I generally assume his fumbling on twitter gets him in hot water. That said, I think that tweet is to his people. If Kavanaugh gets the swift boat, Trump is going to use the narrative that a good man that was innocent lost his confirmation because Democrats lied about him and defamed his character. It is a get out and vote message. I think if they have to jettison Kavanaugh, they'll nominate someone else in his place, probably one of the candidates that was on the short list, and then they'll accuse Democrats of dirty tricks, try and ram through the nominee, and try and use Kavanaugh as a rallying point for the base.

He's not speaking to the American people, he's speaking to his base.

[Winehole23]

It was just a reckless attempt to get clear the name of his friend.Ed Whelan wrecked himself.

[Cry Havoc]

How many psych profs do you know? They're all nuts. But I've never met this particular one.

However, I'd be fine with the Kavanaugh nomination going down. We have NO diversity on the SC - at least the diversity that matters. EVERY justice is Ivy-league.

As Psych is my career, I am inclined to agree with you. But I think it's a lucid kind of insanity. Psychologists are aware of how crazy they (and by extension, we) all are. :P

Generally speaking though, she seems to be a very "above board" person. Never made waves until now. I actually have some very good friends that were in her class and they have nothing but the highest levels of praise for Dr. Ford.

[cd98]

Ed Whelan wrecked himself.

Agreed. It was a face plant.

[101A]

As Psych is my career, I am inclined to agree with you. But I think it's a lucid kind of insanity. Psychologists are aware of how crazy they (and by extension, we) all are. :P

Generally speaking though, she seems to be a very "above board" person. Never made waves until now. I actually have some very good friends that were in her class and they have nothing but the highest levels of praise for Dr. Ford.

Stopped reading at "As psych is my career...."

Noted.

[pgardn]

This twitter posting of Chris and others relying on for their arguments keeps backfiring.
Chris should just drop an anvil on his head.
This Ed Whelan character went so off course... but he apologized. Trumpers who make mistakes never apologize or admit their fanatical hallucinations are wildly WRONG.

This Mr. Ed went way off the rails. Did he have a stroke, booze, drugs, what? He used Fn Zillow to indentify the House This took place in to accuse someone with similar physical characteristics as K? And he has a following...

These absolutely absurd red team lunatics getting “famous” infamous. Go join Alex Jones in that corner Ed. The corner with crystals and heroine IV. Seriously, wtf...

[Winehole23]

Looks like Whelan did.

1043117304152817664is that the way it works? if the tweet is deleted by the original poster the ST post containing it disappears?

we don't get the "this tweet is unavailable" caption?

[Cry Havoc]

Stopped reading at "As psych is my career...."

Noted.


Mmmkay. :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

It will be interesting to see how this thing plays out. One thing I think is strange. Ford wants Kavanaugh to testify first. Why? That means he can't respond to her allegations. That feels like a set up and like it is a playbook from Democrats rather than a victim coming forward. I do not doubt that the allegations could be true. But therein lies the problem. The allegations could also be deemed well-crafted to hit Kavanaugh without having any evidence to back it up and then require him to prove a negative, which is impossible. Then, every action that Ford has taken has been in concert with the Democrats trying to stall the confirmation. It just looks more and more political, which makes me think more and more that it is a hoax.

We'll see what unfolds and whether Republicans have some trump card or not. But I've seen nothing to legitimize these claims to this point, and I think if something doesn't come by Monday, they should proceed to the confirmation. Ford has had her entire life since 15, but especially since July to gather circumstantial evidence and to name the unidentified girl and to identify the house or at least fill in the blank on who's house it was, who took her there, what she did after she left, etc. If you can't fill those essential terms, then you don't have a valid allegation and it should be ignored. You don't need the FBI to investigate for her to fill the gaps in her story.

The other clearly partisan demand was that they couldn't use outside council to question her. What difference does it make who questions her?

They want the television visual of the questioning being done by "old mean white Senators".

[Spurminator]

is that the way it works? if the tweet is deleted by the original poster the ST post containing it disappears?

we don't get the "this tweet is unavailable" caption?

I think so. It's sort of a live embed, so if it no longer exists on Twitter, it no longer exists here. I think the "likes/comments" count updates too.

[pgardn]

is that the way it works? if the tweet is deleted by the original poster the ST post containing it disappears?

we don't get the "this tweet is unavailable" caption?

Someone had to screen capture that shit.
It was drug induced.
Bizarre stuff like that does not come from rational vertebrates.

[pgardn]

The other clearly partisan demand was that they couldn't use outside council to question her. What difference does it make who questions her?

They want the television visual of the questioning being done by "old mean white Senators".

Absolutely. The people who are interested in her story and have the power of the vote surely produce the needed questions. Don’t they? They vote. If a quick follow up question is needed they just ask it, having the vote and all. They can get their staffers to give them a list to start with, but agility to produce their own questions after a particularly interesting question is powerful.

[cd98]

The Whelan tweet was way off and wrong.

But don't forget that "fellow student" facebook post that got a lot of play in a lot of media because she supported Ford. Then when she was showed simple contradictions between her story and what little we know of Ford's accusations, she deleted her posts. I think, in this information age, we always have to look at each claim with a grain of salt until we see something to back it up.

[Spurminator]

Ultimately I still don't see this going anywhere on the accusations of just one victim. It's he said / she said and unless there is a pattern of behavior established, I just don't think enough people will really care about this one alleged incident from almost 40 years ago.

I find Kavanaugh to be a poorly vetted selection for a number of other reasons. He's unpopular beyond precedent, too.

[baseline bum]

Ultimately I still don't see this going anywhere on the accusations of just one victim. It's he said / she said and unless there is a pattern of behavior established, I just don't think enough people will really care about this one alleged incident from almost 40 years ago.

I find Kavanaugh to be a poorly vetted selection for a number of other reasons. He's unpopular beyond precedent, too.

Kavanaugh is a great selection for Trump since he's about the most naked partisan we have seen nominated in a long time.

[cd98]

Ultimately I still don't see this going anywhere on the accusations of just one victim. It's he said / she said and unless there is a pattern of behavior established, I just don't think enough people will really care about this one alleged incident from almost 40 years ago.

I find Kavanaugh to be a poorly vetted selection for a number of other reasons. He's unpopular beyond precedent, too.

He's unpopular because he represents a shift in the court's ideology. Gorsuch replaced Scalia. That's ideology for ideology when it comes to being a textualist. No one really cried about that because it kept the traditional balance that the court has acted under for many years. But swapping Kennedy, a libertarian, with Kavanaugh represents a shift in the bench. That's always going to be unpopular because ultimately people want status quo. You elect a Republican president, and you see abortion rights popularity go high. You elect a Democrat as a president, and you see gun rights popularity go high. People fear a change to the status quo.

[cd98]

Kavanaugh is a great selection for Trump since he's about the most naked partisan we have seen nominated in a long time.

Kavanaugh is a Bush republican, not a Trump Republican. That's a big difference.

[Cry Havoc]

Kavanaugh is a Bush republican, not a Trump Republican. That's a big difference.

Lolwat? Kavanaugh is absolutely a Trumpican. He is open about pardoning the President for crimes he's (allegedly) committed.

[boutons_deux]

But swapping Kennedy, a libertarian, with Kavanaugh represents a shift in the bench.

So-called Mr Balls n Strikes Roberts is the "swing"vote now :lol,

and we know, with the exception ACA (which he managed screw via the backdoor by making Medicaid expansion a state's option), he ALWAYS swings pro-oligarchy.

Oligarchy SCOTUS5 politicians-in-robes, whores 5-4 for decades

[Winehole23]

Kavanaugh is a Bush republican, not a Trump Republican. That's a big difference.How would you parse the difference?

[baseline bum]

Lolwat? Kavanaugh is absolutely a Trumpican. He is open about pardoning the President for crimes he's (allegedly) committed.

LOL shouldn't investigate the president from some piece of shit who was part of Ken Starr's investigation. This asshole is almost as bad as Bork.

[boutons_deux]

How would you parse the difference?

no diff. K will vote with the other 4 right wing extreme activist every time.

[Pavlov]

1042889104969658369

Can pay to wrap a bus but can't find more than six women for Kavanaugh. smh

[CitizenDwayne]

1042889104969658369

Can pay to wrap a bus but can't find more than six women for Kavanaugh. smh
:rollin

[boutons_deux]

Senate Republicans to propose Wednesday hearing for Kavanaugh, accuser:


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kavanaugh-hearing/senate-republicans-to-propose-wednesday-hearing-for-kavanaugh-accuser-cnn-idUSKCN1M12AH?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28Reu ters+Politics+News%29

[Winehole23]

The other clearly partisan demand was that they couldn't use outside council to question her. What difference does it make who questions her?

They want the television visual of the questioning being done by "old mean white Senators".there are no female Senators or staffers to handle that on the Republican side of the Judiciary Committee and they fear the bad optics, so their partisan demand is to have outside counsel to carry water for them.

[Pavlov]

Are all the "mistaken identity" gambits from team rape just a coincidence?

[spurraider21]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnlJr8NV4AAcX-w.jpg

[cd98]

How would you parse the difference?

He worked in the Bush White House and he was appointed to the bench by Bush. Bush is a moderate Republican. Trump is a....I don't know. But Trump is not a moderate Republican.

That said, people have politicized the bench. The Supreme Court justices don't approach cases like oh I'm a Democrat so I have to support any abortion ruling or Oh I'm a Republican so I have to support the 2nd amendment. They differ in how they interpret the constitution, be it a traditional, textual approach or a penumbra/living breathing document approach. Those approaches tend to go certain ways, but I don't see any of the people on the bench as political hacks. I don't see Kavanaugh as one either. He's opposed because he is a textualist, at essence. Maybe that seems to be a distinction without a difference, but I think there is some difference there.

[Winehole23]

the bench is inherently political. justices are politically appointed.

the judicial branch is a co-equal sovereign. it's decisions bind the other branches, it wields power.

it's political through and through -- always has been, its conceit not to be totally notwithstanding.

[baseline bum]

He worked in the Bush White House and he was appointed to the bench by Bush. Bush is a moderate Republican. Trump is a....I don't know. But Trump is not a moderate Republican.

That said, people have politicized the bench. The Supreme Court justices don't approach cases like oh I'm a Democrat so I have to support any abortion ruling or Oh I'm a Republican so I have to support the 2nd amendment. They differ in how they interpret the constitution, be it a traditional, textual approach or a penumbra/living breathing document approach. Those approaches tend to go certain ways, but I don't see any of the people on the bench as political hacks. I don't see Kavanaugh as one either. He's opposed because he is a textualist, at essence. Maybe that seems to be a distinction without a difference, but I think there is some difference there.

:rollin

[boutons_deux]

"I don't see any of the people on the bench as political hacks."

:lol

I don't see Kavanaugh as one either. He's opposed because he is a textualist, at essence.

:lol

[Winehole23]

He worked in the Bush White House and he was appointed to the bench by Bush. Bush is a moderate Republican. Trump is a....I don't know. But Trump is not a moderate Republican.

That said, people have politicized the bench. The Supreme Court justices don't approach cases like oh I'm a Democrat so I have to support any abortion ruling or Oh I'm a Republican so I have to support the 2nd amendment. They differ in how they interpret the constitution, be it a traditional, textual approach or a penumbra/living breathing document approach. Those approaches tend to go certain ways, but I don't see any of the people on the bench as political hacks. I don't see Kavanaugh as one either. He's opposed because he is a textualist, at essence. Maybe that seems to be a distinction without a difference, but I think there is some difference there.You haven't explained the difference between a Bush Republican and a Trump Republican. You just said Trump isn't moderate.

What would a moderate Republican look like?

What made GWB moderate as compared with Trump?

[cd98]

the bench is inherently political. justices are politically appointed.

the judicial branch is a co-equal sovereign. it's decisions bind the other branches, it wields power.

it's political through and through -- always has been, its conceit not to be totally notwithstanding.

That's the perception. The justices see themselves as non-political. Look for interviews with any of them. 95% of the cases they hear have nothing political to them. They are just interpretations of the tax code or some such. We make it political to explain 1-2% of the cases they hear. There are cases that are politically charged, but the justices don't approach them on politics, they approach the question from what the constitution says and prior precedent. Sure, that tends to lead to a lot of 5/4 decisions that seem to be split politically, but not always so. Some "conservative" benches have sided with liberals (see Gay Marriage, Upholding Obamacare, etc).

We live in an age where everything is seen through political lens by the media and internet people. These allegations against Kavanaugh are paper thin, as in no concrete evidence. Yet if you are a Democrat, you think he is guilty of rape (generally they go right past attempted rape and call him a rapist), and if you are a Republican, you believe Kavanaugh without a second thought even though there is some credibility to the claim. That's just the world we live in.

[boutons_deux]

Brett Kavanaugh's Female Clerks Had To Have A 'Certain Look' Says Yale Student (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/20/1797247/-Brett-Kavanaugh-s-Female-Clerks-Had-To-Look-A-Certain-Way-Says-Yale-Student)

A Yale law school student who was seeking a clerkship was told that

Alex Kosinzki sexually harassed his female clerks and

Brett Kavanaugh needed his clerks to have a ‘certain look.’ Huffington Post: (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/yale-student-brett-kavanaugh-clerkship-look_us_5ba2f051e4b0181540d9e2bb)


“He did not say what the ‘certain look’ was. I did not ask,” the woman said.

“It was very clear to me that he was talking about physical appearance,

because it was phrased as a warning ―

and

because it came after the warning about Judge Kozinski.”

“I had mixed feelings,” said the woman, who asked to remain anonymous due to privacy concerns.

“On the one hand, it’s a yellow flag; on the other hand, phew, I hadn’t heard anything else.”


She was also encouraged by the professor’s wife, a law professor known as “Tiger Mom” :lol

to submit photographs of what she might wear, a request which she declined. :lol

Giving law students advice on what to wear to an interview isn’t terribly odd

“It sounds sexist,” Chen said.

“If you’re going into that kind of detail,

it sounds like the judge has a fetish, frankly, and

that the law professors are feeding the fetish.”

do you suppose any male student contemplating employment with Justice Ginsburg, for example,

was ever encouraged to submit photos of himself modeling garments that he might wear to an interview? :lol

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/20/1797247/-Brett-Kavanaugh-s-Female-Clerks-Had-To-Look-A-Certain-Way-Says-Yale-Student?detail=emaildkre

[Winehole23]

That's the perception. The justices see themselves as non-political.it's the reality. the narrative that the bench isn't political is itself a political ideology that masks the operation of power.

it's a fig leaf for thoroughly political animals called judges.

[ElNono]

Kavanaugh is a great selection for Trump since he's about the most naked partisan we have seen nominated in a long time.

Meh, he would be the white version of Clearance Thomas, tbh...

[cd98]

You haven't explained the difference between a Bush Republican and a Trump Republican. You just said Trump isn't moderate.

What would a moderate Republican look like?

What made GWB moderate as compared with Trump?

Well, by today's terms, I don't know what the Republican party is. I mean, tax cuts are traditional Republican policies. But tearing up free trade agreements and imposing tariffs is not. That's pro labor policy. Or building the wall...that's probably far right. But there are people that want sensible immigration policies. I think that is the center of the Dems and Republicans. It's just the extremes in the parties pull a deal apart. Dems to the far left want open borders, which is crazy. I guess it just depends on the issue.

But Kavanaugh is not a Trumper. In fact, I think Trump picked him because he thought he'd be the easiest to confirm.

It's hard today to tell what is a moderate in either party because they have both become more entrenched in their ideology.

[cd98]

it's the reality. the narrative that the bench isn't political is itself a political ideology that masks the operation of power.

it's a fig leaf for thoroughly political animals called judges.

The opinions are based on legal analysis of the Constitution, not what the political platform of the left or right says. That's why I don't think it is an inherently political branch. But I do think that people make it that way to explain the outcomes of the opinions.

[Winehole23]

GWB was installed in office by an en banc SCOTUS decision that was essentially a political plebiscite of nine justices.

SCOTUS tore that veil off its own face.

[boutons_deux]

"I think Trump picked him because he thought he'd be the easiest to confirm. "

Trash picked him because K said a President is untouchably above the law,

after K's rat fucking Clinton as totally vulnerable to the law

[ElNono]

The opinions are based on legal analysis of the Constitution, not what the political platform of the left or right says. That's why I don't think it is an inherently political branch. But I do think that people make it that way to explain the outcomes of the opinions.

The fact that two justices can come to diametrically opposite conclusions on the same court goes to show that the legal analysis is certainly influenced by the social/political beliefs. Interpreting the Constitution is certainly not an exact science.

[cd98]

GWB was installed in office by an en banc SCOTUS decision that was essentially a political plebiscite of nine justices.

SCOTUS tore that veil off its own face.

People go back to that decision. But it wasn't based on polling. It was based on law and analysis of law. People project their political bias on the opinion because it better suits their narrative. You think Bush was an illegitimate president, therefore the body that found in his favor was biased. If it had gone the other way, you would say that it was an even handed decision.

[Winehole23]

The opinions are based on legal analysis of the Constitution, not what the political platform of the left or right says. That's why I don't think it is an inherently political branch. But I do think that people make it that way to explain the outcomes of the opinions.Judges are skilled at finding precedent and crafting legal rationales consistent with their political predilections. How could they not?

Do judges in general respect and try to adhere to the law? Absolutely yes.

But that does not mean that what they do isn't political.

[Winehole23]

People go back to that decision. But it wasn't based on polling. It was based on law and analysis of law. People project their political bias on the opinion because it better suits their narrative. You think Bush was an illegitimate president, therefore the body that found in his favor was biased. If it had gone the other way, you would say that it was an even handed decision.I hated Gore but thought the decision was a piece of crap.

[Winehole23]

the tell was that none of them had the guts to sign the opinion.

[cd98]

The fact that two justices can come to diametrically opposite conclusions on the same court goes to show that the legal analysis is certainly influenced by the social/political beliefs. Interpreting the Constitution is certainly not an exact science.

I'm a lawyer. I can tell you that two people can read a statute or an opinion and come to two different and somewhat legitimate conclusions. Now, I'm not a constitutional lawyer (though I did get an A in con law), but I have studied opinions. I'm no expert on the Supreme Court, but if you are a textualist, of course it's going to come against rights that are not enumerated in the constitution. Likewise, if you believe in a living, breathing constitution, then you will tend to interpret things as rights. Those two views can be opposed. But they also look at precedent, so it's not just what the Constitution says or doesn't say.

Judges will tell you, and I believe them, that they do not let their personal beliefs into their analysis. I've wrote legal opinions that I disagreed with personally, but I knew that is what the law required. I think that can and does happen all the time on the Supreme Court.

[boutons_deux]

"It was based on law and analysis of law."

bullshit

Scalia said SCOTUS didn't have time before 20 Jan to make sure the FL vote elected the right candidate.

"textually", the C says 20 Jan for swearing in, and for extreme right wing activist judges like Scalia and friends, that overrides electing the candidate with the most votes.

[cd98]

Judges are skilled at finding precedent and crafting legal rationales consistent with their political predilections. How could they not?

Do judges in general respect and try to adhere to the law? Absolutely yes.

But that does not mean that what they do isn't political.

That's an outsider's view. I've worked with two Federal Judges before. That is not the case in my experience.

[spurraider21]

I'm a lawyer. I can tell you that two people can read a statute or an opinion and come to two different and somewhat legitimate conclusions. Now, I'm not a constitutional lawyer (though I did get an A in con law), but I have studied opinions. I'm no expert on the Supreme Court, but if you are a textualist, of course it's going to come against rights that are not enumerated in the constitution. Likewise, if you believe in a living, breathing constitution, then you will tend to interpret things as rights. Those two views can be opposed. But they also look at precedent, so it's not just what the Constitution says or doesn't say.

Judges will tell you, and I believe them, that they do not let their personal beliefs into their analysis. I've wrote legal opinions that I disagreed with personally, but I knew that is what the law required. I think that can and does happen all the time on the Supreme Court.
uh huh, and people tend to be textualist or not based on their pre-existing political beliefs.

[cd98]

uh huh, and people tend to be textualist or not based on their pre-existing political beliefs.

It goes way deeper than whether you are for or against gay marriage. That's an outsider view. They didn't choose textualism because they wanted to stop abortions. Statutory interpretation is a codified approach. Heck, Texas has a statute that tells you how you are supposed to construe statutes. They choose textualism because they feel that is the best way to approach analysis of whether or not a right exists without imposing their own political views.

[boutons_deux]

Don Jr. tweets a slut-shaming attack on Christine Blasey Ford's entire high school (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/20/1797242/-Don-Jr-tweets-a-slut-shaming-attack-on-Christine-Blasey-Ford-s-entire-high-school)

Don Jr. retweeted a D’Souza tweet saying that

“No one in the media is covering the culture of hookups and binge drinking the accuser was part of.

Here’s what they’re trying to cover up.”

The article posts photos allegedly from Ford’s high school yearbook that relate to drinking and sex — although

nowhere in the messages is Ford herself actually mentioned as taking part in such activities. [...]

“The resistance media has been singularly focused on Brett Kavanaugh’s high school yearbooks, which imply that he got drunk and threw up,” the post states.

“There’s no need to imply anything from the Holton-Arms yearbooks. It’s all there in focus, and the written word too. All of the sordid details as approved for publication by a ‘look the other way’ faculty.”

That’s a fun little slide from what Kavanaugh’s yearbooks imply he did himself

to what Ford’s yearbooks imply some of her classmates did. Got that?

Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker who Ford credibly alleges sexually assaulted her,

but hey, everyone, look over there!

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/20/1797242/-Don-Jr-tweets-a-slut-shaming-attack-on-Christine-Blasey-Ford-s-entire-high-school?detail=emaildkre

[cd98]

uh huh, and people tend to be textualist or not based on their pre-existing political beliefs.

And I would add that the more liberal justices do not just conclude that every right is available simply because the constitution is a living, breathing document. Their opinions are based on a methodological approach. It is not a given that it always leads them in the opposite direction of a textualist, though that often is the case on like 1-2% of the opinions. The problem is that the only ones people care about en mass are the 1-2% of the opinions.

[101A]

"It was based on law and analysis of law."

bullshit

Scalia said SCOTUS didn't have time before 20 Jan to make sure the FL vote elected the right candidate.

"textually", the C says 20 Jan for swearing in, and for extreme right wing activist judges like Scalia and friends, that overrides electing the candidate with the most votes.




and, yet, they did. The man who received the most votes in Florida became president.

[101A]

Don Jr. tweets a slut-shaming attack on Christine Blasey Ford's entire high school (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/20/1797242/-Don-Jr-tweets-a-slut-shaming-attack-on-Christine-Blasey-Ford-s-entire-high-school)

Don Jr. retweeted a D’Souza tweet saying that

“No one in the media is covering the culture of hookups and binge drinking the accuser was part of.

Here’s what they’re trying to cover up.”

The article posts photos allegedly from Ford’s high school yearbook that relate to drinking and sex — although

nowhere in the messages is Ford herself actually mentioned as taking part in such activities. [...]

“The resistance media has been singularly focused on Brett Kavanaugh’s high school yearbooks, which imply that he got drunk and threw up,” the post states.

“There’s no need to imply anything from the Holton-Arms yearbooks. It’s all there in focus, and the written word too. All of the sordid details as approved for publication by a ‘look the other way’ faculty.”

That’s a fun little slide from what Kavanaugh’s yearbooks imply he did himself

to what Ford’s yearbooks imply some of her classmates did. Got that?

Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker who Ford credibly alleges sexually assaulted her,

but hey, everyone, look over there!

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/20/1797242/-Don-Jr-tweets-a-slut-shaming-attack-on-Christine-Blasey-Ford-s-entire-high-school?detail=emaildkre

How do we know the judge was a heavy drinker? What makes her allegation credible? There is no corroboration. The most convenient thing about her accusation, to me, is the lack of specifics. He can neither say "I wasn't at a party that night" (with potential evidence), or "I've never bee to that house" - again with potential evidence. As long as the charge is "somewhere" "sometime", it is impossible to defeat. Convenient.

[Cry Havoc]

I'm a lawyer. I can tell you that two people can read a statute or an opinion and come to two different and somewhat legitimate conclusions. Now, I'm not a constitutional lawyer (though I did get an A in con law), but I have studied opinions. I'm no expert on the Supreme Court, but if you are a textualist, of course it's going to come against rights that are not enumerated in the constitution. Likewise, if you believe in a living, breathing constitution, then you will tend to interpret things as rights. Those two views can be opposed. But they also look at precedent, so it's not just what the Constitution says or doesn't say.

Judges will tell you, and I believe them, that they do not let their personal beliefs into their analysis. I've wrote legal opinions that I disagreed with personally, but I knew that is what the law required. I think that can and does happen all the time on the Supreme Court.

You're a lawyer, and you think that Supreme Court nominees are apolitical?

What planet are you a lawyer on? Neptune?

[cd98]

You're a lawyer, and you think that Supreme Court nominees are apolitical?

What planet are you a lawyer on? Neptune?

I think the process to confirm them is political, mostly because people make it so. But I don't think judges on the bench on the Supreme Court make political decisions based on their views of politics. I've worked with two Federal Judges, both from different parties. I never once saw them want to look at a political party platform before making a decision. The world behind the courtroom walls is very different than what you think and read on progressive (or conservative) blogs.

[cd98]

and, yet, they did. The man who received the most votes in Florida became president.

John Paul Stevens, the guy that wrote the dissent on Bush v. Gore publicly said it was not a politically biased decision.

[Winehole23]

I hated Gore but thought the decision was a piece of crap.I couldn't decide which third party loser to waste my vote on in 2000.

Patrick Buchanan was the closest to what I thought I believed at the time, but I thought he was over the hill and, face it, a political ratfucker by pedigree. Harry Browne I was sentimentally attached to because of his books on finance and money, but he was just awful as a candidate. Nader was the only one of them with coherent ideas and his head screwed on straight, I agreed with maybe 1/3 of what he said -- a high ratio for me -- so I held my nose and voted for him

[cd98]

How do we know the judge was a heavy drinker? What makes her allegation credible? There is no corroboration. The most convenient thing about her accusation, to me, is the lack of specifics. He can neither say "I wasn't at a party that night" (with potential evidence), or "I've never bee to that house" - again with potential evidence. As long as the charge is "somewhere" "sometime", it is impossible to defeat. Convenient.

I just ignore those kind of posts. So in the era a bunch of people drank and were sexually handsy, Kavanaugh grew up in that era, therefore he committed attempted rape.

[clambake]

he's already made a decision. that trump shouldn't be investigated. thats why he picked him.

[Cry Havoc]

I think the process to confirm them is political, mostly because people make it so. But I don't think judges on the bench on the Supreme Court make political decisions based on their views of politics. I've worked with two Federal Judges, both from different parties. I never once saw them want to look at a political party platform before making a decision. The world behind the courtroom walls is very different than what you think and read on progressive (or conservative) blogs.

No one is saying that the justices are making calls to the house whip to find out what the party wants their decision to be on every single decision passed down. Though I would have fair bets about that happening also, on both sides of the aisle, especially when it's a particularly sticky topic.

But they are absolutely chosen for political means and gains. Both appointments by Trump are going to walk the conservative line their entire life with nary a deviation. You can't look at that and say it's free of partisanship -- your viewpoint just doesn't cohabitate with reality, or you're so inured to the system that you can't step out of the box and see the bigger picture.

Frankly I can't even believe we're having this debate. It's such a non-starter for a real discussion that it feels like you're just attempting to flex a heavy-handed "better than the know-nothing hoi polloi" attitude.

[Cry Havoc]

I just ignore those kind of posts. So in the era a bunch of people drank and were sexually handsy, Kavanaugh grew up in that era, therefore he committed attempted rape.

Ah, he did something that haunts a woman almost 4 decades later. Might as well just chalk it up to boys being boys. Hey, whites used to lynch black people back in the day cause it was, yanno, the zeitgeist, so why even call those crimes?

I have serious fucking doubts about your credentials as a lawyer with that kind of bullshittery.

[cd98]

Ah, he did something that haunts a woman almost 4 decades later. Might as well just chalk it up to boys being boys. Hey, whites used to lynch black people back in the day cause it was, yanno, the zeitgeist, so why even call those crimes?

I have serious fucking doubts about your credentials as a lawyer with that kind of bullshittery.

If you think that because Kavanaugh allegedly grew up in an era where partying and the behavior he is accused of is common, ergo, he did it, then I can't help you. But in the law, we don't convict people on such generalities, and thankfully so. Instead we rely on due process and evidence.

[101A]

Ah, he did something that haunts a woman almost 4 decades later. Might as well just chalk it up to boys being boys. Hey, whites used to lynch black people back in the day cause it was, yanno, the zeitgeist, so why even call those crimes?

I have serious fucking doubts about your credentials as a lawyer with that kind of bullshittery.

The only people writing about "boys will be boys" are the great slayers of straw-men on the left. Kavanaugh's defenders are saying "there is no evidence or corroboration, but there are inconsistencies in her story."

[cd98]

No one is saying that the justices are making calls to the house whip to find out what the party wants their decision to be on every single decision passed down. Though I would have fair bets about that happening also, on both sides of the aisle, especially when it's a particularly sticky topic.

But they are absolutely chosen for political means and gains. Both appointments by Trump are going to walk the conservative line their entire life with nary a deviation. You can't look at that and say it's free of partisanship -- your viewpoint just doesn't cohabitate with reality, or you're so inured to the system that you can't step out of the box and see the bigger picture.

Frankly I can't even believe we're having this debate. It's such a non-starter for a real discussion that it feels like you're just attempting to flex a heavy-handed "better than the know-nothing hoi polloi" attitude.

It's a non-starter because I'm talking to someone that sees things only through politics and doesn't understand the complexity of the law and analysis that goes into judicial interpretation of the constitution.

[Cry Havoc]

If you think that because Kavanaugh allegedly grew up in an era where partying and the behavior he is accused of is common, ergo, he did it, then I can't help you. But in the law, we don't convict people on such generalities, and thankfully so. Instead we rely on due process and evidence.

wtf.

This isn't a criminal court. He's not being arrested. He's not being tried in a court for evidence that goes beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a job interview for the highest court in the land. It's a character review.

Why do I have to delineate this incredibly rudimentary thing to you? Do you actually not understand the difference between criminal court and a judicial nomination review?

[101A]

If you think that because Kavanaugh allegedly grew up in an era where partying and the behavior he is accused of is common, ergo, he did it, then I can't help you. But in the law, we don't convict people on such generalities, and thankfully so. Instead we rely on due process and evidence.

Fuck that. Toss him in a river. See if he floats.

[cd98]

wtf.

This isn't a criminal court. He's not being arrested. He's not being tried in a court for evidence that goes beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a job interview for the highest court in the land. It's a character review.

Why do I have to delineate this incredibly rudimentary thing to you? Do you actually not understand the difference between criminal court and a judicial nomination review?

He's accused of committing a crime. You can't accuse him of that without the implication of what the law requires before considering if the allegation is true or not. Or least you can't do it with any legitimacy.

You can form your own opinions however you want. But if you come with weak arguments like he grew up in a culture of drinking and debauchery, ergo he is guilty of attempted rape and should not be confirmed, then I'm calling out the stupidity of that conclusion based on my structure, which has legitimacy. Notions of due process and rules of evidence have been tried and tested over years and they do much better than mob rule mentality.

[spurraider21]

He's accused of committing a crime. You can't accuse him of that without the implication of what the law requires before considering if the allegation is true or not. Or least you can't do it with any legitimacy.

You can form your own opinions however you want. But if you come with weak arguments like he grew up in a culture of drinking and debauchery, ergo he is guilty of attempted rape and should not be confirmed, then I'm calling out the stupidity of that conclusion based on my structure, which has legitimacy. Notions of due process and rules of evidence have been tried and tested over years and they do much better than mob rule mentality.
someone might fail a character review for a job without being referred for prosecution

see: zeke elliott

[Spurs Homer]

I'm a lawyer. I can tell you that two people can read a statute or an opinion and come to two different and somewhat legitimate conclusions. Now, I'm not a constitutional lawyer (though I did get an A in con law), but I have studied opinions. I'm no expert on the Supreme Court, but if you are a textualist, of course it's going to come against rights that are not enumerated in the constitution. Likewise, if you believe in a living, breathing constitution, then you will tend to interpret things as rights. Those two views can be opposed. But they also look at precedent, so it's not just what the Constitution says or doesn't say.

Judges will tell you, and I believe them, that they do not let their personal beliefs into their analysis. I've wrote legal opinions that I disagreed with personally, but I knew that is what the law required. I think that can and does happen all the time on the Supreme Court.

You're a lawyer?
You see nothing wrong with how Kavanaugh's alleged victim is being treated? You keep repeating that the FBI has zero to investigate? Seriously?

Ok- just humor us;

(a) You are the alleged sexual assault victims attorney - the defense is telling you - no witnesses, no fbi investigation, no delay -gotta take the stand in 3 days, the jury has made comments regarding your client being "mixed-up" - and have pretty much stated that the accused suspect is pretty much gonna walk. They refused an investigation and said - "it was too long ago - nothing to find there" - there was another WITNESS - but he told the prosecutor "I don't want to testify under oath" and the prosecutor said "ok-sure"
-- Are you happy with this for your victim/client? -- Are the scales of justice evenly applied here?


(b) You are Kavanaughs attorney - the prosecutor is telling you - "he will walk" - the jury has been holding "war room sessions" all week and coaching him on how to answer questions, the prosecutor has disallowed any independent investigation even though the standard practice has always been to allow an fbi background to be completed or re-opened whenever new allegations surface but they winked at you and said "don't worry - the president believes your client and will back you 100%
-- Are you happy being the attorney in this situation?

A or B seems legally fair to you?

Since you are a lawyer.

[CosmicCowboy]

That's an outsider's view. I've worked with two Federal Judges before. That is not the case in my experience.

My son clerked for a 5th circuit judge. He routinely would assign different clerks to take opposing views on every major decision and then review them and typically go with the most compelling argument.

[cd98]

someone might fail a character review for a job without being referred for prosecution

see: zeke elliott

He was accused of committing a crime. People are asking for the FBI to investigate. The fact that someone is afraid to apply traditional notions of due process and evidence only confirms that they know that the allegation is paper thin. Also, Democrats have said that he should now be investigated and possibly impeached from his seat on the DC court of appeals. So, I think applying the law has plenty of reason.

Zeke lost work because of the collective bargaining agreement. But the case was investigated and the prosecutor determined there was not enough evidence to convict. That said, the Zeke case had more solid evidence than the case against Kavanaugh. It was not question that his girlfriend had been manhandled, it was just whether or not he did it.

[cd98]

You're a lawyer?
You see nothing wrong with how Kavanaugh's alleged victim is being treated? You keep repeating that the FBI has zero to investigate? Seriously?

Ok- just humor us;

(a) You are the alleged sexual assault victims attorney - the defense is telling you - no witnesses, no fbi investigation, no delay -gotta take the stand in 3 days, the jury has made comments regarding your client being "mixed-up" - and have pretty much stated that the accused suspect is pretty much gonna walk. They refused an investigation and said - "it was too long ago - nothing to find there" - there was another WITNESS - but he told the prosecutor "I don't want to testify under oath" and the prosecutor said "ok-sure"
-- Are you happy with this for your victim/client? -- Are the scales of justice evenly applied here?


(b) You are Kavanaughs attorney - the prosecutor is telling you - "he will walk" - the jury has been holding "war room sessions" all week and coaching him on how to answer questions, the prosecutor has disallowed any independent investigation even though the standard practice has always been to allow an fbi background to be completed or re-opened whenever new allegations surface but they winked at you and said "don't worry - the president believes your client and will back you 100%
-- Are you happy being the attorney in this situation?

A or B seems legally fair to you?

Since you are a lawyer.

If I was her attorney (and I'm not a criminal attorney), I would tell her to file a complaint with the Maryland police department. There is no statute of limitations on a rape allegation. I would tell her to have them investigate. Before I went public with the allegation, I would make sure that she could clearly articulate where she was, when it happened, who was there, who's house it was, how she got there, and where she went after. I also wouldn't go to the media and politicize. I would have handled it privately and quietly and if the Maryland police decided there was a case, then it would become public.

But that's not anything close to what happened here because it has been treated like a political hit job. Unfortunately. That's why I tend to think it is a hoax. Answer the questions above, and then I'd see if I change my mind about the allegation.

[cd98]

My son clerked for a 5th circuit judge. He routinely would assign different clerks to take opposing views on every major decision and then review them and typically go with the most compelling argument.

Yes, that's how it works. They don't want to make political decisions, then want to make decisions that are backed by solid legal analysis.

[Spurs Homer]

If I was her attorney (and I'm not a criminal attorney), I would tell her to file a complaint with the Maryland police department. There is no statute of limitations on a rape allegation. I would tell her to have them investigate. Before I went public with the allegation, I would make sure that she could clearly articulate where she was, when it happened, who was there, who's house it was, how she got there, and where she went after. I also wouldn't go to the media and politicize. I would have handled it privately and quietly and if the Maryland police decided there was a case, then it would become public.

But that's not anything close to what happened here because it has been treated like a political hit job. Unfortunately. That's why I tend to think it is a hoax. Answer the questions above, and then I'd see if I changed my mind.


So A or B - is the most advantageous?

Easy question.

[Pavlov]

"Random woman exposes self to doxxing, death threats and character assassination to pwn Trump."

[cd98]

So A or B - is the most advantageous?

Easy question.

I would not treat the case like a political hit job, so I wouldn't find myself in that situation. Ford hired an attorney and took a lie detector test in the summer. There was plenty of time to launch an investigation with the Maryland police back then. Unfortunately, all her actions to this point reek of political activism.

[Spurs Homer]

I would not treat the case like a political hit job, so I wouldn't find myself in that situation. Ford hired an attorney and took a lie detector test in the summer. There was plenty of time to launch an investigation with the Maryland police back then. Unfortunately, all her actions to this point reek of political activism.

Irrelevant.

A or B?

[cd98]

Irrelevant.

A or B?

It's entirely relevant. The A scenario came about because the attorney was less interested in getting to the truth and more interested in stopping the confirmation. It's not like Ford has three days to figure out where she was, who's house it was, who was there, how she got there, and where she went after. She's had since she was 15 to know that information and she's had since at least before July to figure that stuff out. She should be able to tell her story by now. If she can't, it's because it's just a story.

[Spurs Homer]

It's entirely relevant. The A scenario came about because the attorney was less interested in getting to the truth and more interested in stopping the confirmation. It's not like Ford has three days to figure out where she was, who's house it was, who was there, how she got there, and where she went after. She's had since she was 15 to know that information and she's had since at least before July to figure that stuff out. She should be able to tell her story by now. If she can't, it's because it's just a story.

Your client is waiting. Sham trial in a few days. We are here now. Defend her.

The rest is just an attempt to play politics - same as you are accusing the alleged victim. There is no hurry except in the GOP's mind. What is the real and most important issue. Justice and truth under the legal system - or a false/arbitrary deadline because of Red vs. Blue?

This guy is going to be the top of the law of the land and there is no time to really focus on truth and justice? Really?
What kind of a country are we living in? The guy being rushed to become one of only 9 people out of 320 million to sit on this prestigious court- and he is credibly accused of a serious crime (attempted rape) of which many 17 year olds do prison time - and he has no time for clearing his good name?

The GOP and its base would rather confirm a possible criminal - than actually vet him properly and make sure that he is innocent? The GOP hid 93% of his public records, rushed this sham hearing and its supporters are just waving the Red flag to get a win?

You are a man of the law?

[101A]

Your client is waiting. Sham trial in a few days. We are here now. Defend her.

The rest is just an attempt to play politics - same as you are accusing the alleged victim. There is no hurry except in the GOP's mind. What is the real and most important issue. Justice and truth under the legal system - or a false/arbitrary deadline because of Red vs. Blue?

This guy is going to be the top of the law of the land and there is no time to really focus on truth and justice? Really?
What kind of a country are we living in? The guy being rushed to become one of only 9 people out of 320 million to sit on this prestigious court- and he is credibly accused of a serious crime (attempted rape) of which many 17 year olds do prison time - and he has no time for clearing his good name?

The GOP and its base would rather confirm a possible criminal - than actually vet him properly and make sure that he is innocent? The GOP hid 93% of his public records, rushed this sham hearing and its supporters are just waving the Red flag to get a win?

You are a man of the law?

I am not entirely sure that even if he did what has been alleged, and it was proven in err. '82 or '83 or whenever, that it would have been a "crime". Not saying he did it, just saying, I'm not sure that what is alleged would have been "criminal".

[spurraider21]

My son clerked for a 5th circuit judge. He routinely would assign different clerks to take opposing views on every major decision and then review them and typically go with the most compelling argument.
some judges to that. they all should. most dont.

for instance, every single clerk clarence thomas has ever hired had previously clerked for a republican-appointed appellate judge. every single one. how can you trust them to give a convincing brief supporting the "other side?" you can't. justice breyer notably hires close to a 50/50 split. and he's a liberal justice who tends to weigh pro-law enforcement and side with the conservative wing on those issues, so it shows.

[101A]

Your client is waiting. Sham trial in a few days. We are here now. Defend her.

The rest is just an attempt to play politics - same as you are accusing the alleged victim. There is no hurry except in the GOP's mind. What is the real and most important issue. Justice and truth under the legal system - or a false/arbitrary deadline because of Red vs. Blue?

This guy is going to be the top of the law of the land and there is no time to really focus on truth and justice? Really?
What kind of a country are we living in? The guy being rushed to become one of only 9 people out of 320 million to sit on this prestigious court- and he is credibly accused of a serious crime (attempted rape) of which many 17 year olds do prison time - and he has no time for clearing his good name?

The GOP and its base would rather confirm a possible criminal - than actually vet him properly and make sure that he is innocent? The GOP hid 93% of his public records, rushed this sham hearing and its supporters are just waving the Red flag to get a win?

You are a man of the law?

Also, include Feinstein when you gripe about the need to rush now. Didn't have to be this way. But since the Republicans have made it clear from the beginning that they wanted this done by 10/1 - not arbitrary; it's when the sc goes in session, there is now a need to "rush". Also, if there are any corroborators out there willing to come forward, I'm pretty sure they can do so - at any time. What, exactly, should be investigated? Where should they start? There is no date, or location to search. No witness except here remembers anything about this (2 boys in the room deny- she admittedly didn't tell anyone else) - what i there to investigate? Going to waterboard Mark Judge?

[cd98]

Your client is waiting. Sham trial in a few days. We are here now. Defend her.

The rest is just an attempt to play politics - same as you are accusing the alleged victim. There is no hurry except in the GOP's mind. What is the real and most important issue. Justice and truth under the legal system - or a false/arbitrary deadline because of Red vs. Blue?

This guy is going to be the top of the law of the land and there is no time to really focus on truth and justice? Really?
What kind of a country are we living in? The guy being rushed to become one of only 9 people out of 320 million to sit on this prestigious court- and he is credibly accused of a serious crime (attempted rape) of which many 17 year olds do prison time - and he has no time for clearing his good name?

The GOP and its base would rather confirm a possible criminal - than actually vet him properly and make sure that he is innocent? The GOP hid 93% of his public records, rushed this sham hearing and its supporters are just waving the Red flag to get a win?

You are a man of the law?

Ha. If my client didn't have her story straight. I would not have her testify. I would withdraw her from the political process. I would go and file a complaint with the local authorities in Maryland and I would ignore the entire Supreme Court confirmation. Who cares if he's confirmed? If she has a legitimate case, he'll be off the court in a year.

But the situation is a result of bad lawyering and great political operation.

The biggest hit to Ford's thin story is the fact that it's caked in political operation. I think she's lying merely because she is treating this like it's a political card game. If I want my client to be believable, I remove her from the political environment and move forward with my case in Maryland.

[koriwhat]

Yeah, a doctor at a respected university, has worked at Stanford University, with multiple publications in her field. WHAT A CRAZY PERSON.

What the fuck do you signifies anything like "well she's a nut"? What doctor from Stanford doesn't meet the universal criteria for sanity of calf tats?

i stopped insulting you yrs ago because i didn't really dislike you and realized how dumb i was being but here you are bucking up with insults. hmm...

she's crazy because of her political ideology. doesn't mean she wasn't able to graduate college, get a high up job at a uni, nor get published multiple times.

she's crazy just like your ex is. she was sane enough to breathe air but not sane enough to stay off ST.

[Spurs Homer]

Also, include Feinstein when you gripe about the need to rush now. Didn't have to be this way. But since the Republicans have made it clear from the beginning that they wanted this done by 10/1 - not arbitrary; it's when the sc goes in session, there is now a need to "rush". Also, if there are any corroborators out there willing to come forward, I'm pretty sure they can do so - at any time. What, exactly, should be investigated? Where should they start? There is no date, or location to search. No witness except here remembers anything about this (2 boys in the room deny- she admittedly didn't tell anyone else) - what i there to investigate? Going to waterboard Mark Judge?

False. The hearing started with a rush from the GOP. Witholding hundreds of thousands of documents and then dumping 140,000 documents on the Dems laps - 15 hours before the start of the hearing. Merrick Garland waited for a year - and never got a hearing - so all of this whining is just irrelevant.

NOW.

Allegations have surfaced and must be dealt with. This guy wants to serve on the highest court in the land - and his very first crisis of law - is right now. He has no time to clear his name with honor?

[boutons_deux]

After the Kavanaugh Allegations, Republicans Offer a Shocking Defense: Sexual Assault Isn’t a Big Deal

a startling number of conservative figures have reacted as if they believe Ford,

and have thus ended up in the peculiar position of

defending the right of a Supreme Court Justice to have previously attempted to commit rape—

a stance that at once faithfully corresponds to and defiantly refutes the current Zeitgeist.

These defenders think that the seventeen-year-old Kavanaugh could easily, as Ford alleges, have gotten wasted at a party, pushed a younger girl into a bedroom, pinned her on a bed, and tried to pull off her clothes while covering her mouth to keep her from screaming.

They think this, they say, because they know that plenty of men and boys do things like this.

On these points, they are in perfect agreement with the women who have defined the #MeToo (https://www.newyorker.com/tag/metoo) movement.

And yet their conclusion is so diametrically opposed to the moral lessons of the past year that it seems almost deliberately petulant.

We now mostly accept that lots of men have committed sexual assault, but one part of the country is saying, “Yes, this is precisely the problem,” and the other part is saying,

“Yes, that is why it would obviously be a non-issue to have one of these men on the Supreme Court.”

“I do not understand why the loutish drunken behavior of a 17 year old high school boy has anything to tell us about the character of a 53 year old judge.”

“If stupid, bad, or drunken behavior as a minor back in high school were the standard, every male politician in Washington, DC would fail.”

"If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried.”

“What about the deeper, moral, cultural, like, the ethical question here?

Let’s say he did this exactly as she said.

Should the fact that a seventeen-year-old presumably very drunk kid did this—should this be disqualifying?”

“How much in society should any of us be held liable today when we lived a good life, an upstanding life by all accounts, and then something that maybe is an arguable issue took place in high school?

Should that deny us chances later in life?”

it has traditionally been accepted for men to sexually assault women, particularly at parties, particularly when they’re young.

Kavanaugh’s defenders are putting plainly

a previously euphemized message:

white and wealthy teen-age boys have the right to engage in criminal sexual cruelty

as long as they later get a good job, start a family, and “settle down.”

Severino (https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1042074734807146502) said that Ford’s version of events could be describing anything from “boorishness to rough horseplay.”

(In other words, it wasn’t attempted rape; it was a word that people use to cover up attempted rape.)

It would appear that Severino, and those who have made similar comments,

have no idea—and not much interest in understanding—what being on the other end of this sort of “horseplay” feels like.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/after-the-kavanaugh-allegations-republicans-offer-a-shocking-defense-sexual-assault-isnt-a-big-deal?mbid=nl_Daily%20092118&CNDID=43758549&utm_source=Silverpop&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20092118&utm_content=&spMailingID=14293055&spUserID=MTQzNTk4NzA3ODYzS0&spJobID=1481745052&spReportId=MTQ4MTc0NTA1MgS2

So there's a contingent of K supporters who believe Ford but say what K did 30 years ago, white boys will be white boys, was not big deal

(he's one of our ratfucking, misogynist tribe, so he gets a huge pass).

If he were black and/or Dem, I'm sure Repugs would have voted him down.

[CosmicCowboy]

Crying about the documents?

You mean the 49 democrats that had already decided they were going to oppose him no matter what?

[101A]

After the Kavanaugh Allegations, Republicans Offer a Shocking Defense: Sexual Assault Isn’t a Big Deal

a startling number of conservative figures have reacted as if they believe Ford,

and have thus ended up in the peculiar position of

defending the right of a Supreme Court Justice to have previously attempted to commit rape—

a stance that at once faithfully corresponds to and defiantly refutes the current Zeitgeist.

These defenders think that the seventeen-year-old Kavanaugh could easily, as Ford alleges, have gotten wasted at a party, pushed a younger girl into a bedroom, pinned her on a bed, and tried to pull off her clothes while covering her mouth to keep her from screaming.

They think this, they say, because they know that plenty of men and boys do things like this.

On these points, they are in perfect agreement with the women who have defined the #MeToo (https://www.newyorker.com/tag/metoo) movement.

And yet their conclusion is so diametrically opposed to the moral lessons of the past year that it seems almost deliberately petulant.

We now mostly accept that lots of men have committed sexual assault, but one part of the country is saying, “Yes, this is precisely the problem,” and the other part is saying,

“Yes, that is why it would obviously be a non-issue to have one of these men on the Supreme Court.”

“I do not understand why the loutish drunken behavior of a 17 year old high school boy has anything to tell us about the character of a 53 year old judge.”

“If stupid, bad, or drunken behavior as a minor back in high school were the standard, every male politician in Washington, DC would fail.”

"If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried.”

“What about the deeper, moral, cultural, like, the ethical question here?

Let’s say he did this exactly as she said.

Should the fact that a seventeen-year-old presumably very drunk kid did this—should this be disqualifying?”

“How much in society should any of us be held liable today when we lived a good life, an upstanding life by all accounts, and then something that maybe is an arguable issue took place in high school?

Should that deny us chances later in life?”

it has traditionally been accepted for men to sexually assault women, particularly at parties, particularly when they’re young.

Kavanaugh’s defenders are putting plainly

a previously euphemized message:

white and wealthy teen-age boys have the right to engage in criminal sexual cruelty

as long as they later get a good job, start a family, and “settle down.”

Severino (https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1042074734807146502) said that Ford’s version of events could be describing anything from “boorishness to rough horseplay.”

(In other words, it wasn’t attempted rape; it was a word that people use to cover up attempted rape.)

It would appear that Severino, and those who have made similar comments,

have no idea—and not much interest in understanding—what being on the other end of this sort of “horseplay” feels like.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/after-the-kavanaugh-allegations-republicans-offer-a-shocking-defense-sexual-assault-isnt-a-big-deal?mbid=nl_Daily%20092118&CNDID=43758549&utm_source=Silverpop&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20092118&utm_content=&spMailingID=14293055&spUserID=MTQzNTk4NzA3ODYzS0&spJobID=1481745052&spReportId=MTQ4MTc0NTA1MgS2

So there's a contingent of K supporters who believe Ford but say what K did 30 years ago, white boys will be white boys, was not big deal

(he's one of our ratfucking, misogynist tribe, so he gets a huge pass).

If he were black and/or Dem, I'm sure Repugs would have voted him down.






I would like to see at least a partial list of the "startling number of convervatives". Severino? Whose that? The baseball player?

[Spurs Homer]

I am not entirely sure that even if he did what has been alleged, and it was proven in err. '82 or '83 or whenever, that it would have been a "crime". Not saying he did it, just saying, I'm not sure that what is alleged would have been "criminal".

Many 17 year olds in this country (usually black and brown) go to prison for attempted rape. He is alleged to have held her down, ripped at her clothes, covered her mouth when she tried to call for help and his accomplice turned the music loud to avoid being heard while they attempted to rape her.

But you want a W for the Red team, amirite?

[Spurs Homer]

Crying about the documents?

You mean the 49 democrats that had already decided they were going to oppose him no matter what?

Tell that to Merrick Garland.

[RandomGuy]

He's accused of committing a crime. You can't accuse him of that without the implication of what the law requires before considering if the allegation is true or not. Or least you can't do it with any legitimacy.

You can form your own opinions however you want. But if you come with weak arguments like he grew up in a culture of drinking and debauchery, ergo he is guilty of attempted rape and should not be confirmed, then I'm calling out the stupidity of that conclusion based on my structure, which has legitimacy. Notions of due process and rules of evidence have been tried and tested over years and they do much better than mob rule mentality.

This isn't a trial.

This is a hearing in the senate to determine fitness for the Supreme Court.

Seems like a credible allegation of a felony within the statute of limitations of the state where it occurred is enough information to make that call.

Not really a challenging ethical problem.

[koriwhat]

Many 17 year olds in this country (usually black and brown) go to prison for attempted rape. He is alleged to have held her down, ripped at her clothes, covered her mouth when she tried to call for help and his accomplice turned the music loud to avoid being heard while they attempted to rape her.

But you want a W for the Red team, amirite?

i don't see you crying for ellison's victim or bill's rape victims. we know, it's because you want a W for the Blue team, amirite?

[Spurs Homer]

Here is what no one has asked:

Why didn't Kavanaugh report the crime? Why didn't he wake up the next day, call his accomplice and say, "dude, we fucked up, I feel horrible. That poor girl must be terrified. Let us do the right thing and report this and apologize and hope it is not too late"

I might be pulling for THAT guy to be a SC Justice.

[cd98]

Many 17 year olds in this country (usually black and brown) go to prison for attempted rape. He is alleged to have held her down, ripped at her clothes, covered her mouth when she tried to call for help and his accomplice turned the music loud to avoid being heard while they attempted to rape her.

But you wan a W for the Red team, amirite?

And you want to rely on an allegation where the girl can't say how she got to where she was, can't say who owned the house, can't say where she went, and doesn't know when it happened. Those are basic questions that any D.A. would ask a girl that wants to press charges. If she can't answer those now, then when can she answer them? If she answered those questions and provided information that could be fact checked and reviewed, then I'm all for an in depth investigation. But she hasn't done that. She's only alleged enough facts to create a he said/she said scenario.

[Spurs Homer]

i don't see you crying for ellison's victim or bill's rape victims. we know, it's because you want a W for the Blue team, amirite?

Shut up.

[koriwhat]

Shut up.

upset because you're a hypocrite and got called out? yeah and because you're a fucking retard too.

[101A]

This isn't a trial.

This is a hearing in the senate to determine fitness for the Supreme Court.

Seems like a credible allegation of a felony within the statute of limitations of the state where it occurred is enough information to make that call.

Not really a challenging ethical problem.

Then why isn't the Maryland police's investigating it? They don't need her permission.

[cd98]

This isn't a trial.

This is a hearing in the senate to determine fitness for the Supreme Court.

Seems like a credible allegation of a felony within the statute of limitations of the state where it occurred is enough information to make that call.

Not really a challenging ethical problem.

It's not in a trial court, but he is very much on trial. And if you are going to destroy anyone's reputation with that kind of an allegation, you better be able to say where it happened, when it happened, who owned the home, how you got there, and what you did when you left before you go to the media and make that accusation. And if you can't explain basic elements of your story, then it shouldn't be given credence until you can. She's being invited to fill in the gaps and has evaded and now says she'll go if she testifies last so Kavanaugh can't respond to her allegations.

[Spurs Homer]

And you want to rely on an allegation where the girl can't say how she got to where she was, can't say who owned the house, can't say where she went, and doesn't know when it happened. Those are basic questions that any D.A. would ask a girl that wants to press charges. If she can't answer those now, then when can she answer them? If she answered those questions and provided information that could be fact checked and reviewed, then I'm all for an in depth investigation. But she hasn't done that. She's only alleged enough facts to create a he said/she said scenario.

No - those are questions that the professionals in the FBI are good at tracking down. They start with just a crumb of info and build a case and eventually all those questions are answered - or are revealed to be false information from a lying witness. Then you can call her a liar and exonerate the alleged rapist.

Or not.

Why are you so afraid of an investigation, lawyer?
Wouldn't you fight for your client to be treated fairly under the law?

[cd98]

Then why isn't the Maryland police's investigating it? They don't need her permission.

Because Ford went to Diane Feinstein instead of the police to report a crime.

[Spurs Homer]

upset because you're a hypocrite and got called out? yeah and because you're a fucking retard too.

:cry:cry

[koriwhat]

it's all just kabuki by the left. the left is dead and these fucked up tactics are all they have left.

[koriwhat]

:cry:cry

it's funny how you're dodging such a question. i must had hit the nail on the head.

it's funny watching you far left losers squirm.

[cd98]

No - those are questions that the professionals in the FBI are good at tracking down. They start with just a crumb of info and build a case and eventually all those questions are answered - or are revealed to be false information from a lying witness. Then you can call her a liar and exonerate the alleged rapist.

Or not.

Why are you so afraid of an investigation, lawyer?
Wouldn't you fight for your client to be treated fairly under the law?

What? I'm not afraid of an investigation, but give some details to investigate. That's the problem as I've said all along. You think the FBI have to figure out who owned the house, where it was, how she got there, who was there, and where she went when she left without asking her? What are they going to go back in a time machine? The only one that can answer those questions is Ford. She's decided to insert herself in this process since July. Why has she not answered these basic questions?

[Spurs Homer]

It's not in a trial court, but he is very much on trial. And if you are going to destroy anyone's reputation with that kind of an allegation, you better be able to say where it happened, when it happened, who owned the home, how you got there, and what you did when you left before you go to the media and make that accusation. And if you can't explain basic elements of your story, then it shouldn't be given credence until you can. She's being invited to fill in the gaps and has evaded and now says she'll go if she testifies last so Kavanaugh can't respond to her allegations.

Obviously, you have never dealt with a victim of sexual assault or rape have you?

They sometimes only reveal a couple of things, Sometimes they are afraid to tell anyone. Sometimes they have to be gently coaxed into a testimony. This is why the FBI is successful - they send the appropriate people to investigate thoroughly and competently.

You keep saying - there isn't enough this, enough that - but this is exactly how cases begin - with very little.
No crime is gift-wrapped and tied with a big bow.

No matter - after this sham hearing - she will go to the Montgomery County,Maryland PD and file her criminal complaint. Then a SC Justice will be put through the ringer again.

[spurraider21]

actually i didn't because i didn't vote as an 18 yr old which was circa 2000 (Bush vs. Gore)... then there's Kerry (2004) which would've made me 22 yrs old. i can't remember voting during that presidential race however the next two i did vote in. if i did it would've been for kerry just because fuck bush but fuck kerry too! the next two votes i cast were and will always be a decision i wish i never made but whatever.

as well, what's it matter? your jabs are as weak as you are.
:lmao


let's see if i can fix this. ah that's better.

ps: yeah i voted for obama and kerry and gore. thing is i could give a shit less about any of those mentioned. i'm not democratic nor do i give a fuck about politics enough to choose sides. i simply chose that which isn't republican and pushed one button so my ass could get back home asap and smoke a bowl. fuck politics.

[CosmicCowboy]

Obviously, you have never dealt with a victim of sexual assault or rape have you?

They sometimes only reveal a couple of things, Sometimes they are afraid to tell anyone. Sometimes they have to be gently coaxed into a testimony. This is why the FBI is successful - they send the appropriate people to investigate thoroughly and competently.

You keep saying - there isn't enough this, enough that - but this is exactly how cases begin - with very little.
No crime is gift-wrapped and tied with a big bow.

No matter - after this sham hearing - she will go to the Montgomery County,Maryland PD and file her criminal complaint. Then a SC Justice will be put through the ringer again.

If she hasn't remembered after 35 years a little "gentle coaxing" won't recover her memory.

On the other hand, a little politically expedient "gentle coaching" appears to have been going on.

[Spurs Homer]

What? I'm not afraid of an investigation, but give some details to investigate. That's the problem as I've said all along. You think the FBI have to figure out who owned the house, where it was, how she got there, who was there, and where she went when she left without asking her? What are they going to go back in a time machine? The only one that can answer those questions is Ford. She's decided to insert herself in this process since July. Why has she not answered these basic questions?

You don't think the FBI knows how to investigate? You don't think every FBI case begins with almost nothing to go on - and becomes a provable criminal case. I'm sorry but I sure hope when someone hires you - they bring 100% of a winnable case for you - because you obviously will not be able to help anyone who doesn't have a 100% bulletproof winnable case with every piece of evidence neatly wrapped and packaged for you, counselor!

[CosmicCowboy]

You don't think the FBI knows how to investigate? You don't think every FBI case begins with almost nothing to go on - and becomes a provable criminal case. I'm sorry but I sure hope when someone hires you - they bring 100% of a winnable case for you - because you obviously will not be able to help anyone who doesn't have a 100% bulletproof winnable case with every piece of evidence neatly wrapped and packaged for you, counselor!

You have been watching way too much TV.

[Cry Havoc]

:lmao

koriwhat, a right wing millennial, lambasting people for their lack of political accountability in 1996 when he wasn't old enough to drive a fucking car, aaaaaaaaaand lying about it to sound impartial. Fucking lol. :lmao

[RandomGuy]

Further, it is fully possible for the guy to, in fact, be guilty, and there still not be enough evidence to convict in a court.

The two are not mutually exclusive possibilities. "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent".

For this, we just need enough information to make a call for a lifetime judicial appointment. A credible allegation of a felony would appear to cross that bar.

[cd98]

You don't think the FBI knows how to investigate? You don't think every FBI case begins with almost nothing to go on - and becomes a provable criminal case. I'm sorry but I sure hope when someone hires you - they bring 100% of a winnable case for you - because you obviously will not be able to help anyone who doesn't have a 100% bulletproof winnable case with every piece of evidence neatly wrapped and packaged for you, counselor!

Why can't this person you believe provide these answers? Duh it's the first few questions the FBI will ask. And when she can't answer them, there goes your investigation. Your willingness to ignore obvious questions that need to be answered to ascertain guilt is beyond reason unless you don't really care and this is all about stopping the confirmation. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But I'm out. Got to work now.

[cd98]

Further, it is fully possible for the guy to, in fact, be guilty, and there still not be enough evidence to convict in a court.

The two are not mutually exclusive possibilities. "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent".

For this, we just need enough information to make a call for a lifetime judicial appointment. A credible allegation of a felony would appear to cross that bar.

That is true, but there isn't enough evidence to even bring a charge against him. I doubt the Maryland police would even take up the investigation if the accuser can't even say where she was or when it happened, let alone the other questions I've consistently raised.

[RandomGuy]

If she hasn't remembered after 35 years a little "gentle coaxing" won't recover her memory.

On the other hand, a little politically expedient "gentle coaching" appears to have been going on.

As opposed to politically expedient villanizing of a traumatized victim of a physical attack, who is brave enough to endure death threats to speak the truth as she sees it?

Not remembering every single detail of a trauma after 35 years is something that truthful people do, and is fully consistant with someone telling the truth.

Sorry, you can pretend otherwise because "republican white guy", I guess.

Ok if a Republican did it., right asshole?

[RandomGuy]

That is true, but there isn't enough evidence to even bring a charge against him. I doubt the Maryland police would even take up the investigation if the accuser can't even say where she was or when it happened, let alone the other questions I've consistently raised.

And that is where police are wrong. You haven't raised shit, other than lies, flawed arguments, and unproven assumptions.

[koriwhat]

:lmao

but i didn't so i suppose i lied. i didn't vote in 2000. i just turned 18 and the voting was a few months later of which i took no part in. still i might had voted for kerry for the fuck of it though but def not gore.

ps: is there a way to check who you voted for in the past? i tried googling yesterday but couldn't find anything other than to register to vote.

[RandomGuy]

Then why isn't the Maryland police's investigating it? They don't need her permission.

Good question.

Why wouldn't the police investigate a rich white prick?

[CosmicCowboy]

As opposed to politically expedient villanizing of a traumatized victim of a physical attack, who is brave enough to endure death threats to speak the truth as she sees it?

Not remembering every single detail of a trauma after 35 years is something that truthful people do, and is fully consistant with someone telling the truth.

Sorry, you can pretend otherwise because "republican white guy", I guess.

Ok if a Republican did it., right asshole?

If you can't argue with logic, argue with emotion and attack the other guy personally, right?

your new MO.

[koriwhat]

koriwhat, a right wing millennial, lambasting people for their lack of political accountability in 1996 when he wasn't old enough to drive a fucking car, aaaaaaaaaand lying about it to sound impartial. Fucking lol. :lmao

what are you even talking about? i'm not right nor left wing of anything. either way, fuck the far left and i hope yall burn in hell!

[RandomGuy]

Actually, it fits the profile of a well-crafted accusation that is impossible to prove or disprove. Is it a coincidence that she has acted lock stop with the democrats and just hired a democratic operative? Normally allegations from rape are not orchestrated by the democratic party.

Beginning to sound like Cosmoreds: muh jacket flap

Feel free to provide any evidence to support the theory that it is fabricated. As noted, the instances of women making up rape allegations completely... are vanishingly rare in the scientific literature.

But thanks for pointing out how thin your standard of evidence is.

[ducks]

Much harder to investigate when she does not know what year
And it could be 35 years ago !

[Cry Havoc]

but i didn't so i suppose i lied. i didn't vote in 2000. i just turned 18 and the voting was a few months later of which i took no part in. still i might had voted for kerry for the fuck of it though but def not gore.

ps: is there a way to check who you voted for in the past? i tried googling yesterday but couldn't find anything other than to register to vote.

Kerry wasn't running in 2000 dude. Do you think the ticket in 2000 was Bush Gore Kerry? You would have been old enough to vote for Kerry in 2004, but it sounds like you're confused about the ordering process.

[RandomGuy]

If you can't argue with logic, argue with emotion and attack the other guy personally, right?

your new MO.

I've already argued with logic. I have provided evidence of how rare false allegations generally are, and how delays and even inconsistencies don't indicate false reporting.

You have chosen to ignore that because you are a horrible human being who wants to support team red no matter how immoral that makes you.

That is insulting, but not an ad hominem.

You aren't wrong because you are an asshole. You are an asshole, because you are a horrible human being. There is a difference.

As noted, I lost any shred of respect for you here when you started twisting things and blaming the victim to protect your preferred political agenda.

[DarrinS]

Beginning to sound like Cosmoreds: muh jacket flap

Feel free to provide any evidence to support the theory that it is fabricated. As noted, the instances of women making up rape allegations completely... are vanishingly rare in the scientific literature.

But thanks for pointing out how thin your standard of evidence is.


That’s not how it works.

[RandomGuy]

That’s not how it works.

Actually it is.

"she is lying" is a specific claim, that carries with it a burden of proof. I have tried explaining this kind of shit to you for years, and you still don't get it. smh.

[DarrinS]

Actually it is.

"she is lying" is a specific claim, that carries with it a burden of proof. I have tried explaining this kind of shit to you for years, and you still don't get it. smh.


The burden of proof is on the accuser.

[boutons_deux]

"Why can't this person you believe provide these answers?"

traumatized?

willful, long-ago forgetting of extremely unpleasant details, other than the two assholes who did it to her?


https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/9/20/17879768/memory-brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-psychology

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/09/20/kavanaugh-accuser-can-recall-certain-details-memory-experts-say-that-doesn-discredit-her-story/8AKkKATEnxmZFlh18rTJnI/story.html


=======================
Jennifer Rubin: Republicans, be forewarned: Kavanaugh’s accuser has options
When she gets in front of the cameras, she should remind the country:

• This concerns attempted rape, something far more serious than the allegations raised by Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas during his 1991 confirmation hearings.


• The FBI investigated Hill’s claims within three days (Republicans could have sent the FBI and gotten a report back by now if they hadn’t been stalling).

• Mark Judge allegedly witnessed the attack, but Republicans refuse to call him as a witness, so we can assume that they regard him as a person who would harm Kavanaugh’s defense.

• Republicans' insistence that Ford provide even more detail is hypocritical (since they don’t want an FBI investigation) and misguided, given the large body of research concerning memories of victims of sexual assault (e.g., gaps in memory are common).

• If Kavanaugh was an excessive drinker in high school, as has been alleged, he’s in no position to testify accurately as to what he did and didn’t do.

• The unsubstantiated attacks on Ford by members such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reveal that they have predetermined the outcome of the hearing.

(“She had plenty of chances to bring it up, she did not,” Graham said.

“We’re not going to play this game anymore.

We [want] Miss Ford to be heard but clearly to me, in August, she hired a lawyer who’s a very activist lawyer,

who does not like President Trump and paid for a polygraph.”)

But this is no “game,” and

Ford has every right to seek counsel to fend off attacks like the very ones that Republican senators are making.

• There is no need to rush to a vote in the next few days. None. Republicans have set an artificial deadline for fear that more damaging information might come out.

In short, Ford can use the hearing to put the senators, who have behaved shabbily, on defense.

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/09/20/jennifer-rubin/

My guess is that she, her lawyer(s), and probably some other very smart people are helping her write a written statement to be read to the Senate.

I think she should request a public, not private appearance, giviving the Senators a national TV chance to show, repeatedly, what misogynist assholes they are.

[DarrinS]

Apparently, she’s afraid to fly.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/21/trump-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-charges-834664


Delay, delay, delay

[RandomGuy]

It's not in a trial court, but he is very much on trial. And if you are going to destroy anyone's reputation with that kind of an allegation, you better be able to say where it happened, when it happened, who owned the home, how you got there, and what you did when you left before you go to the media and make that accusation. And if you can't explain basic elements of your story, then it shouldn't be given credence until you can. She's being invited to fill in the gaps and has evaded and now says she'll go if she testifies last so Kavanaugh can't respond to her allegations.


The studies I provided you, had you bothered to read them, show that we know victims of trauma will often not fully remember everything. Humans tend to forget small details.

So you are going to ignore the evidence that says humans can tell the truth about something and not remember all the details?

[koriwhat]

Kerry wasn't running in 2000 dude. Do you think the ticket in 2000 was Bush Gore Kerry? You would have been old enough to vote for Kerry in 2004, but it sounds like you're confused about the ordering process.

nah, i stated i might had voted in 2004 for kerry but can't really remember. i know for sure obama 2 terms and def not gore in 2000.

[RandomGuy]

Apparently, she’s afraid to fly.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/21/trump-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-charges-834664


Delay, delay, delay

Go eat a dick. Delay was fine with you for Garland, and he wasn't accused of attempted rape.

You hypocritical sack of shit.

[CosmicCowboy]

I've already argued with logic. I have provided evidence of how rare false allegations generally are, and how delays and even inconsistencies don't indicate false reporting.

You have chosen to ignore that because you are a horrible human being who wants to support team red no matter how immoral that makes you.

That is insulting, but not an ad hominem.

You aren't wrong because you are an asshole. You are an asshole, because you are a horrible human being. There is a difference.

As noted, I lost any shred of respect for you here when you started twisting things and blaming the victim to protect your preferred political agenda.

I get that you are desperate to believe her with the flimsiest of stories because because its good for blue team.

That doesn't make you a bad person.

And just because 9 out of 10 told the truth in your "documentation" that doesn't mean the 10th didn't flat out lie.

[101A]

Actually it is.

"she is lying" is a specific claim, that carries with it a burden of proof. I have tried explaining this kind of shit to you for years, and you still don't get it. smh.

OK here is some evidence. Three people whom she claims to have been in the house on the night of the alleged rape deny either being there or that it happened. Therefore she is mistaken.

[101A]

If it was 3-1 in her favor, thiS would be over. He’d be done

[RandomGuy]

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

As noted, the instances of false reports are small.

Barring other evidence we have two accounts. "I dont' remember doing that" and "I remember it happened".

Brett being drunk and not remembering allows both people to be telling the truth, and IN FACT for "it happened" to be true.

Given how rare false, fabricated reports are, and how implausible that someone would be willing to endure personal and professional ruin, stupid bullshit innuendo from Cosmic notwithstanding, the balance seems fairly obvious.

Especially given the other person alleged in the room had a pretty clear pattern of mysogeny later in life. My guess is that he egged his friend on after getting drunk. no way to know that.

We will never know conclusively, but have enough information to figure out which end of the scale the needle is pointing to.

There are other qualified judges, and it won't be the end of the world.

Why not pick someone who isn't accuse of attempted rape to be a supreme court judge?

[RandomGuy]

I get that you are desperate to believe her with the flimsiest of stories because because its good for blue team.

That doesn't make you a bad person.

And just because 9 out of 10 told the truth in your "documentation" that doesn't mean the 10th didn't flat out lie.

... and if you read the actual studies, almost none of the women actually made it up out of whole cloth.

Most of that last 1 just had accounts that were so thinly evidenced, that they had to be shrugged off as unprosecuted-able.

But again, you dont' give two shits about evidence, as already noted. Republicans always get the benefit of the doubt, so you can get your preferred ideology's policies. Winning at any cost, and the ends justify the means. Pure moral bankruptcy.

[RandomGuy]

OK here is some evidence. Three people whom she claims to have been in the house on the night of the alleged rape deny either being there or that it happened. Therefore she is mistaken.

Mistaken about who was there at the party, sure. that is an ancillary detail.

Again, due to the way memory works, and especially of trauma, that isn't really all that unexpected.

Answer me this:

If you didn't want to be dragged into a media frenzy, or be called to testify in front of congress, would you lie about being there to be kept out of it if it wasn't under oath and with no other consequences?

[101A]

Mistaken about who was there at the party, sure. that is an ancillary detail.

Again, due to the way memory works, and especially of trauma, that isn't really all that unexpected.

Answer me this:

If you didn't want to be dragged into a media frenzy, or be called to testify in front of congress, would you lie about being there to be kept out of it if it wasn't under oath and with no other consequences?

I wouldn’t but I cannot speak for Dr. Ford

[101A]

Also, not just at the party - in the room

[RandomGuy]

Also, not just at the party - in the room

Her statements I am aware of say that there were three people in the room, her, Kavenaugh, Judge.

feel free to provide a specific account.