Spatial Ed

Kaven-No?

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Dog said:

Fair point....Maybe I would have been better off citing Keith Ellison.

Did you see what I did there?

Yes you would have. That would have worked better.

I would like to think if his accuser is proven correct he would resign or be pressured to by his constituents and his party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Her conditions are her out... The committee has bent over backwards to accommodate her, going so far as saying they will go to her in California, open or closed session. If she doesn't testify it will speak volumes.

If this was your wife and knowing how other witnesses have been treated (starting with Anita Hill) would you want her to testify? A simple yes or no is sufficient.  What is obvious is the GOP wants Kavanugh on the court.  Bigly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, Yes I would want my wife to testify - she'd get run off the hill after she told the noble senators to fuck off for the second or third time but I'd want her to testify nonetheless.  I don't know Dr. Ford's temperament and how long she'd put up with their shenanigans before she told them to fuck off but my wife's tolerance is about 45 seconds - probably not enough to get through opening statements.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

FWIW, Yes I would want my wife to testify - she'd get run off the hill after she told the noble senators to fuck off for the second or third time but I'd want her to testify nonetheless.  I don't know Dr. Ford's temperament and how long she'd put up with their shenanigans before she told them to fuck off but my wife's tolerance is about 45 seconds - probably not enough to get through opening statements.

She seems like someone I would enjoy conversing with immensely.  If my better half would ever get the point of telling men to fuck off she would be so much happier and stress free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dog said:

Or we could look to preceedant for a statute of limitations on character like perhaps Ted Kennedy.

I wasn't aware that Ted Kennedy set a precedent for Senate determining the character of a SCOTUS nomination. Pray tell, when was he nominated and how did the senate vote regarding that nomination.

 

13 hours ago, Dog said:

 BTW...there is no statute of limitations for sex crimes in Maryland. If Ford thinks she has a case she can take it to Bethesda

That she can. She can also testify to the FBI, knowing the penalties for false statements made to the, which she is willing to do. Kavanaugh and Judge are not willing to do that, being aware of the same penalties.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dog said:

Sometimes I have no opinion and quote things simply because they are pertenant, sometimes I do have an opinion. In all cases the quote remains the responsibility of the person being quoted whether someone attempts to doggie style it or not.

And the responsibility for bringing it into the conversation remains with the person that did that. It is also reasonable to ascertain whether that person stands by the claims they brought into the conversation, no matter how hard they try to doggy-style it. They might be too craven, gutless, and/or dishonest to answer that question, but they still brought it up and it's still reasonable to determine if they do or do not stand by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

You're absolutely right, the good judge knows very well the implications of lying about this under oath. As of today it appears that Dr. Ford is the only one unwilling to testify under oath.

Bzzt. Wrong. She's more than willing to testify under oath. To the FBI. She's unwilling to testify to the committee if no investigation is going to be undertaken. Given the Anita Hill treatment, I can't say I blame her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dog said:

When I quote someone else the text will appear in quotation marks in which case the responsibility will be the authors. This is commonly understood so please make a note of it.

Here's a bag for Dog who do that doo doo that he do so well.

image.thumb.png.74e4b65a6ade8c17e5adb9305007635a.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, hermetic said:

porter went to brown, so we can assume he is talking about a kennedy

Nah, John-john graduated before I got there. Patrick went to Providence College; I first met him when we were both presidents of our respective chapters of the College Democrats. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Wait.  That's unpossible.  Jack was JUST crowing about she wasn't going to.  Even started a thread here on it.  So that can't be right.  Just.. can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, and while we're at it, since this is Jack's next thread here I'll just post it now.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/donald-trump-kavanaugh-accuser/index.html

Isn't he great?  I mean, he hasn't called her a whore yet or anything, or even tried to pay her off.  But he also hasn't requested the FBI investigate either.  What a great guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Nah, John-john graduated before I got there. Patrick went to Providence College; I first met him when we were both presidents of our respective chapters of the College Democrats. :lol:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/georgetown-prep-student-party-culture-kavanaugh_us_5ba28cf7e4b07c23ef37a06c

Animal House X 1000!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:
1 hour ago, B.J. Porter said:

Nah, John-john graduated before I got there. Patrick went to Providence College; I first met him when we were both presidents of our respective chapters of the College Democrats. :lol:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/georgetown-prep-student-party-culture-kavanaugh_us_5ba28cf7e4b07c23ef37a06c

Animal House X 1000!

I'll see that, and raise you a flag of underwear and a bunch of guys that don't have the faintest grasp of consent.

Although to be fair to Kavanaugh, his fraternity didn't get suspended for chanting "No means yes! Yes means anal!" outside the university Women's Center until long after he was gone from Yale and the Tit and Clit Truth and Courage all male secret society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Has Alex Jones sent his people after her yet?

She's had to go into hiding to protect herself and her family from death threats, if that's what you mean.

Of course that could just be random Trump supporters doing that these days. Not even some of the Proud Boys or other violent Nazi types very fine people that love Trump so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grrr... said:

Oh yeah, and while we're at it, since this is Jack's next thread here I'll just post it now.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/donald-trump-kavanaugh-accuser/index.html

Isn't he great?  I mean, he hasn't called her a whore yet or anything, or even tried to pay her off.  But he also hasn't requested the FBI investigate either.  What a great guy.

You know, I thought that was an Onion headline when I saw it. I had to double check it was CNN.

I mean, are they serious? Trump dealing respectfully with a woman who is thwarting him? How long until he starts cracking on her looks or gives her a number rating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, B.J. Porter said:

You know, I thought that was an Onion headline when I saw it. I had to double check it was CNN.

I mean, are they serious? Trump dealing respectfully with a woman who is thwarting him? How long until he starts cracking on her looks or gives her a number rating?

You mean publicly, right? Otherwise I've got the easiest $20 I'll ever win saying he did it last week.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, benwynn said:

What did he do when he realized such grouping was unwanted?

He exclaimed “I confess!  I tried to kill Papa Doc with my Voodoo Doll!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B.J. Porter said:

You know, I thought that was an Onion headline when I saw it. I had to double check it was CNN.

I mean, are they serious? Trump dealing respectfully with a woman who is thwarting him? How long until he starts cracking on her looks or gives her a number rating?

The instant she turns her back, he’s staring at her ass...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Amati said:

He exclaimed “I confess!  I tried to kill Papa Doc with my Voodoo Doll!”

We really have to sit down with a couple of Firesign Theater records and a pound of good black hash.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, d'ranger said:

If this was your wife and knowing how other witnesses have been treated (starting with Anita Hill) would you want her to testify? A simple yes or no is sufficient.  What is obvious is the GOP wants Kavanugh on the court.  Bigly.

Yes I would...it would be moot anyway because there would be no way I could stop her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even more absurd than BJ's I went to a school like that and I knew guys argument. This is the state of the debate from the people who purport to be the fact based ones..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Even more absurd than BJ's I went to a school like that and I knew guys argument. This is the state of the debate from the people who purport to be the fact based ones..

So what do the other side purport to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dog said:

Even more absurd than BJ's I went to a school like that and I knew guys argument. This is the state of the debate from the people who purport to be the fact based ones..

You have to admit, asking for FBI scrutiny sure puts Dr. Ford in legal jeopardy if she is, in fact, lying. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

You have to admit, asking for FBI scrutiny sure puts Dr. Ford in legal jeopardy if she is, in fact, lying. 

People who haven’t done anything wrong would welcome FBI investigation, to clear their name, would they not?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

People who haven’t done anything wrong would welcome FBI investigation, to clear their name, would they not?  

That is my take. 

Apparently, such a desire is not universal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

You have to admit, asking for FBI scrutiny sure puts Dr. Ford in legal jeopardy if she is, in fact, lying. 

The same thing that hurts her in the 'he said she said' nature of this case - namely a 35 year old case with basically zero forensic evidence - protects her from any real liability.  Unless there's some proof out there somewhere that she's a paid operative, she has no more legal risk than Kavanaugh. No one from this case is going to be criminally convicted based on a 35 year old memory alone.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

The same thing that hurts her in the 'he said she said' nature of this case - namely a 35 year old case with basically zero forensic evidence - protects her from any real liability.  Unless there's some proof out there somewhere that she's a paid operative, she has no more legal risk than Kavanaugh. No one from this case is going to be criminally convicted based on a 35 year old memory alone.

Agreed. A memory alone wouldn't do it. They might get convicted of telling the FBI lies should they make statements that are later shown to be false. Say Kavanaugh denying he was at a party the FBI uncovers witnesses saying he was at or Ford giving the FBI a date for an assault Brett has an iron clad alibi for. 

Which is why they should investigate and why Trump won't instruct them to. An investigation might uncover who is lying whereas a "he said, she said" can be safely dismissed by loyal supporters and hence ignored. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Kinda hard to get her motivation to make this up.

Beyond patriotism.

Really? ...We're talking here about a seat on the supreme court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

You have to admit, asking for FBI scrutiny sure puts Dr. Ford in legal jeopardy if she is, in fact, lying. 

Okay- lets play this out.

How does the FBI prove it happened?  There is no DNA.  There are no video tapes.  It is an allegation that he tried to remove clothes AND STOPPED.  It is an allegation he covered her mouth. The only alleged witness is not talking.  Candidly, if I was in that room and nothing happened-- unless this guy was a blood relation I would not get involved.  He is assured to get death threats, etc from crazies.  My friend being on SCOTUS ain't worth it to me.

 

If you were up fro SCOTUS, I could claim I saw you with a sheep!  I could DEMAND an FBI investigation and sound sanctimonious.  But what can the investigate?  The only one who can testify is me and the sheep.  And the sheep ain't talk'n :>)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

Really? ...We're talking here about a seat on the supreme court.

Some people are concerned a documented liar and possible child sexual assault perpetrator may be seated.

You?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snore said:

Okay- lets play this out.

How does the FBI prove it happened?  There is no DNA.  There are no video tapes.  It is an allegation that he tried to remove clothes AND STOPPED.  It is an allegation he covered her mouth. The only alleged witness is not talking.  Candidly, if I was in that room and nothing happened-- unless this guy was a blood relation I would not get involved.  He is assured to get death threats, etc from crazies.  My friend being on SCOTUS ain't worth it to me.

 

If you were up fro SCOTUS, I could claim I saw you with a sheep!  I could DEMAND an FBI investigation and sound sanctimonious.  But what can the investigate?  The only one who can testify is me and the sheep.  And the sheep ain't talk'n :>)

How can we get you back 6 years in time to share your story with a therapist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

You have to admit, asking for FBI scrutiny sure puts Dr. Ford in legal jeopardy if she is, in fact, lying. 

That's a good point, but to assert that a person charged and who does not request an investigation is therefore guilty is patently  absurd yet that's the level of reasoning we get from a US Senator and possible presidential candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Some people are concerned a documented liar and possible child sexual assault perpetrator may be seated.

You?

I get that, the question ask was what possible motive might she have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares now anyway? The judge could wear a shirt saying "I grab pussies" and every girl in DC could say he attacked her and he will still get voted in. The Rs just-do-not-give-a-shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

I get that, the question ask was what possible motive might she have.

Motive to have to leave her home because Trumpers want to murder her and her family? A lot to go through just to annoy some guy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

How can we get you back 6 years in time to share your story with a therapist?

Last I read, this is where things get dodgy.

 

The therapist notes do NOT contain names and the notes claim there were 4 boys in the room.  

 

"In a perfect world", the senate would hear people absent political bias and make a value judgement.  But instead we have the partisan shit show.  Going to be interesting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

That's a good point, but to assert that a person charged and who does not request an investigation is therefore guilty is patently  absurd yet that's the level of reasoning we get from a US Senator and possible presidential candidate.

That is political grandstanding.  They engage in hyperbole as a default.

You act like it's the first time you've experienced it.

At least, you don't ever seem as outraged when practiced by Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Who cares now anyway? The judge could wear a shirt saying "I grab pussies" and every girl in DC could say he attacked her and he will still get voted in. The Rs just-do-not-give-a-shit.

Yeah Republicans are bad and all that but do you find Ford's case compelling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

That is political grandstanding.  They engage in hyperbole as a default.

You act like it's the first time you've experienced it.

At least, you don't ever seem as outraged when practiced by Republicans.

You act like it doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Motive to have to leave her home because Trumpers want to murder her and her family? A lot to go through just to annoy some guy.

It's not a good thing to stir up the assholes on either side. Kavanaugh also has received death threats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

Yeah Republicans are bad and all that but do you find Ford's case compelling?

I went to high school at the same time about 30 minutes away. I have no doubt that kind of shit went on - and much worse - all the time. Who and what those kids were is no mystery to me. We had a local version of that school that was the major drug distribution hub for our area :rolleyes:

I do find her case compelling for a few reasons. One is the time machine factor, how did she decide in 2018 to back in time 12 years and see a therapist. Second is the Rs acting like they know he did it and they already had a plan in place to deal with it. All involved are acting like he is guilty.  I am open to changing my mind if new facts come to light.

Honestly that isn't my biggest reservation about him. He has lied about other things and seems hand-picked for one reason only, to keep Trump and his family out of jail. I don't even think Trump gives a shit about his views other than that one thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what reasoning will kavanaugh use to convince the other members of the sc that they should keep trump and his family out of jail? or will he decide that matter on his own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I went to high school at the same time about 30 minutes away. I have no doubt that kind of shit went on - and much worse - all the time. Who and what those kids were is no mystery to me. We had a local version of that school that was the major drug distribution hub for our area :rolleyes:

I do find her case compelling for a few reasons. One is the time machine factor, how did she decide in 2018 to back in time 12 years and see a therapist. Second is the Rs acting like they know he did it and they already had a plan in place to deal with it. All involved are acting like he is guilty.  I am open to changing my mind if new facts come to light.

She doesn't know where or when the incident occurred. Her one eye witness says the story is nuts. The therapists' notes conflict with her account. This is compelling? Oh I forgot,  you did go to school 30 minutes away and bad things happened back then.

What do you make of the fact that she paid for a friendly polygraph and hired a sex crimes lawyer at a time when she purports to having no intention of going public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dog said:

You act like it doesn't matter.

I act like it is practiced by both sides and take equal umbrage with the perpetrators, regardless of party.

Try it, sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Agreed. A memory alone wouldn't do it. They might get convicted of telling the FBI lies should they make statements that are later shown to be false. Say Kavanaugh denying he was at a party the FBI uncovers witnesses saying he was at or Ford giving the FBI a date for an assault Brett has an iron clad alibi for. 

Which is why they should investigate and why Trump won't instruct them to. An investigation might uncover who is lying whereas a "he said, she said" can be safely dismissed by loyal supporters and hence ignored. 

 

Lets play this out a little.   Lets say that he's confirmed while the investigation is ongoing.  There's two outcomes:

If the FBI investigates and finds nothing criminal, would that change anything?   Would the Democrats accept him as clean?   I'm guessing no.  Kavanaugh was tried, convicted, and sentenced before his name was even submitted in terms of the supreme court.  If not sexual allegations its gambling if not gambling its something else.  He was the next guy in after the bullshit of Garland and the ferryman is GOING to be paid.  (yes SCOTUS)

If the FBI investigates and finds criminal wrongdoing, Kavanaugh could be impeached, removed from the SCOTUS, and sent to jail. (no SCOTUS)

 

Let's say he's put on hold while the investigation is ongoing.

If the election occurs, and the Republicans hold on, then we're back to case 1.  He's either innocent and life moves on.  He assumes the mantle of the 'Republican hatred and misogyny" until the next contestant steps forward to take the baton.

If the election occurs and the Democrats hold on, then we have two outcomes.  If he's found guilty, then he's sent to jail or purgatory or whatever. (no SCOTUS)

If he's found innocent, he's STILL going to be rejected because he was tried, convicted, and sentenced before his name was even submitted. (no SCOTUS)

 

To me, this is all about power, not about logic.  Logically, the FBI has already said there isn't enough evidence to open an investigation. But that's not what any of this is really about.  It's about power and politics, not logic or morality or criminality or whatever.  Bill Mahar has gotten his wish - the Dems have jumped down in the sewer with the republicans and are going to shiv it out.  Good for them.  If we like this system, vote incumbent in Nov.  If we don't, vote the other party.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

I act like it is practiced by both sides and take equal umbrage with the perpetrators, regardless of party.

Try it, sometime.

We can decide for ourselves how even handed your commentary is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

We can decide for ourselves how even handed your commentary is.

I find your attempt "objectivity" to be particularly humorous.

I doubt I am alone, in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

She doesn't know where or when the incident occurred. Her one eye witness says the story is nuts. The therapists' notes conflict with her account. This is compelling? Oh I forgot,  you did go to school 30 minutes away and bad things happened back then.

I think there is enough to investigate because the lead time on her first mention of the event makes the "keep him off SCOTUS bench" excuse a little too Dr Who and his time travelling activists for my liking. 

 

Just now, Dog said:

What do you make of the fact that she paid for a friendly polygraph and hired a sex crimes lawyer at a time when she purports to having no intention of going public?

Prudent. Her name got leaked and her credibility questioned by partisan loyalists like yourself. She has a polygraph to say shez not lying and a lawyer to keep the threats of legal action already thrown about managed. But yeah, being innocent means leaving yourself open to predictable attacks right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

 

Lets play this out a little.   Lets say that he's confirmed while the investigation is ongoing.  There's two outcomes:

If the FBI investigates and finds nothing criminal, would that change anything?   Would the Democrats accept him as clean?   I'm guessing no.  Kavanaugh was tried, convicted, and sentenced before his name was even submitted in terms of the supreme court - he was the next guy in after the bullshit of Garland and the ferryman is GOING to be paid.  (yes SCOTUS)

If the FBI investigates and finds criminal wrongdoing, Kavanaugh could be impeached, removed from the SCOTUS, and sent to jail. (no SCOTUS)

 

Let's say he's put on hold while the investigation is ongoing.

If the election occurs, and the Republicans hold on, then we're back to case 1.  He's either innocent and life moves on.  He assumes the mantle of the 'Republican hatred and misogyny" until the next contestant steps forward to take the baton.

If the election occurs and the Democrats hold on, then we have two outcomes.  If he's found guilty, then he's sent to jail or purgatory or whatever. (no SCOTUS)

If he's found innocent, he's STILL going to be rejected because he was tried, convicted, and sentenced before his name was even submitted. (no SCOTUS)

 

To me, this is all about power, not about logic.  Logically, the FBI has already said there isn't enough evidence to open an investigation. But that's not what any of this is really about.  It's about power and politics, not logic or morality or criminality or whatever.  Bill Mahar has gotten his wish - the Dems have jumped down in the sewer with the republicans and are going to shiv it out.  Good for them.  If we like this system, vote incumbent in Nov.  If we don't, vote the other party.

 

I don't get that at ALL. The FBI is not the body that would investigate this as a crime, it would be the Montgomery County Police. For the FBI to step in, the President and/or nominating committee has to ASK THEM TO. Which they won't because they don't care if he did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

. Which they won't because they don't care if he did it.

I believe that if there was something to act on, the FBI would act on it.  I don't believe there's any way you can sweep any real evidence in a case this big under the rug nor would they be motivated to do so.  I don't like the tactics of the FBI - i think it's fucking evil they way people are blackmailed into testimony -  but I personally don't doubt the FBI sincerity.  That's actually what makes them so terrifying.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

I believe that if there was something to act on, the FBI would act on it.  I don't believe there's any way you can sweep any real evidence in a case this big under the rug nor would they be motivated to do so.  I don't like the tactics of the FBI - i think it's fucking evil they way people are blackmailed into testimony -  but I personally don't doubt the FBI sincerity.  That's actually what makes them so terrifying.

 

Why would they? This is not a federal crime. If she had called them at the time, she would have been referred to the local police. The FBI helps the nominating committee find things out they want to know. So far, they seem content to investigate on their own. If asked to help, the FBI will help. If not, not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If K is an evangelist,  and born twice, that boyish stuff has been forgiven. He's a pillar of the community! 

If you believe in sky faries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Kavanaugh also has received death threats.

wanta buy a bridge :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ishmael said:

We really have to sit down with a couple of Firesign Theater records and a pound of good black hash.

Not in available in sector 21!  

(Was it 21?) (Where is sector 21?)

(Mar a Lago?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Kinda hard to get her motivation to make this up.

Beyond patriotism.

She’s a surfer.  

Waves are real. Bullshit shouldn’t be.

We’re sailors- I figure we should get this.

It’s kind of corny, but think about the ending of ‘Big Wednesday’....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Hell, he's head and shoulders above Trump in the honour and truth department. He would certainly make a better president.

A low bar, 94.3% of Americans would make a better president. The other 5.7% are under the age of 7 months.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

I believe that if there was something to act on, the FBI would act on it.  I don't believe there's any way you can sweep any real evidence in a case this big under the rug nor would they be motivated to do so.  I don't like the tactics of the FBI - i think it's fucking evil they way people are blackmailed into testimony -  but I personally don't doubt the FBI sincerity.  That's actually what makes them so terrifying.

 

The role of the FBI here is to do background checks on nominees for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are a national security risk.  They are not there to investigate potential state crimes.  And further, a potential witness before the Senate Committee has no business demanding FBI investigations into a nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jzk said:

The role of the FBI here is to do background checks on nominees for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are a national security risk.  They are not there to investigate potential state crimes.  And further, a potential witness before the Senate Committee has no business demanding FBI investigations into a nominee.

You seem a little confused.  Of course the FBI in their role of background investigations is not going to pursue a state criminal charge.  But, if along their investigation they learn of say, a sexual encounter that sounds fishy, they are definitely going to explore that issue more vigorously than they would have without that knowledge.   Talk to more HS classmates, ask specific questions about any misbehavior, etc.   

They collect information on a whole bunch of things, finances, criminal acts, addictions, etc. and then forward the information to the requesting authority for adjudication.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Her one eye witness says the story is nuts.

The blackout drunk who won't testify under oath.

this place illustrates the poll numbers. old dudes feel sorry for kavanaugh.

anyways, all this does is continue the Kavanaugh is a serial liar, and a bad one at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Prudent. Her name got leaked and her credibility questioned by partisan loyalists like yourself. She has a polygraph to say shez not lying and a lawyer to keep the threats of legal action already thrown about managed. But yeah, being innocent means leaving yourself open to predictable attacks right? 

Or the entire thing has been orchestrated (including perhaps the coordinated disruptions of the hearings) and the friendly polygraph and attorney in advance were in preparation for the time when she would go public. Farfetched? perhaps, but we know from the collusion fiction that Democrats are not above such corrupt tactics. Certainly no more farfetched than the I went to a similar school nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Or the entire thing has been orchestrated (including perhaps the coordinated disruptions of the hearings) and the friendly polygraph and attorney in advance were in preparation for the time when she would go public. Farfetched? perhaps, but we know from the collusion fiction that Democrats are not above such corrupt tactics. Certainly no more farfetched than the I went to a similar school nonsense.

Cough cough Bullshit cough cough

for a conspiracy theorist like you, no theory is too far fetched. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Dog said:

Or the entire thing has been orchestrated (including perhaps the coordinated disruptions of the hearings) and the friendly polygraph and attorney in advance were in preparation for the time when she would go public. Farfetched? perhaps, but we know from the collusion fiction that Democrats are not above such corrupt tactics. Certainly no more farfetched than the I went to a similar school nonsense.

You keep repeating "collusion fiction" and there is no evidence to support that.

There may well be, at some point.  But, the investigation is not complete.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Time machine required :rolleyes:

Don't you know the dems have an accuser* laying trails like in therapy the moment a someone is considered for a heritage foundation like list, they have it laying in wait in case they need to use it a decade or few later, the cunning sulphur smelling people will go to any lengths.

* or a few in case some die off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the "friend that doesn't want to testify" have blackmail material over a judge at any point in the future?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/open-letter-senate-judiciary-committee-yale-law-faculty

Open Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee from Yale Law Faculty

As the Senate Judiciary Committee debates Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, we write as faculty members of Yale Law School, from which Judge Kavanaugh graduated, to urge that the Senate conduct a fair and deliberate confirmation process. With so much at stake for the Supreme Court and the nation, we are concerned about a rush to judgment that threatens both the integrity of the process and the public’s confidence in the Court.

Where, as here, a sexual assault has been alleged against an individual nominated for a lifetime appointment in a position of public trust, a partisan hearing alone cannot be the forum to determine the truth of the matter. Allegations of sexual assault require a neutral factfinder and an investigation that can ascertain facts fairly.  Those at the FBI or others tasked with such an investigation must have adequate time to investigate facts. Fair process requires evidence from all parties with direct knowledge and consultation of experts when evaluating such evidence. In subsequent hearings, all of those who testify, and particularly women testifying about sexual assault, must be treated with respect.

The confirmation process must always be conducted, and appointments made, in a manner that gives Americans reason to trust the Supreme Court.  Some questions are so fundamental to judicial integrity that the Senate cannot rush past them without undermining the public’s confidence in the Court. This is particularly so for an appointment that will yield a deciding vote on women’s rights and myriad other questions of immense consequence in American lives.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Cough cough Bullshit cough cough

for a conspiracy theorist like you, no theory is too far fetched. 

Well it's no more farfetched than a Democratic senator and perspective presidential candidate claiming that Kavanaugh's failure to call for an FBI investigation of himself proves his guilt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Well it's no more farfetched than a Democratic senator and perspective presidential candidate claiming that Kavanaugh's failure to call for an FBI investigation of himself proves his guilt.

A perspective presidential candidate.  My lab has been dead for 36yrs and is still smarter than you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sean said:

 

https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/open-letter-senate-judiciary-committee-yale-law-faculty

Open Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee from Yale Law Faculty

As the Senate Judiciary Committee debates Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, we write as faculty members of Yale Law School, from which Judge Kavanaugh graduated, to urge that the Senate conduct a fair and deliberate confirmation process. With so much at stake for the Supreme Court and the nation, we are concerned about a rush to judgment that threatens both the integrity of the process and the public’s confidence in the Court.

Where, as here, a sexual assault has been alleged against an individual nominated for a lifetime appointment in a position of public trust, a partisan hearing alone cannot be the forum to determine the truth of the matter. Allegations of sexual assault require a neutral factfinder and an investigation that can ascertain facts fairly.  Those at the FBI or others tasked with such an investigation must have adequate time to investigate facts. Fair process requires evidence from all parties with direct knowledge and consultation of experts when evaluating such evidence. In subsequent hearings, all of those who testify, and particularly women testifying about sexual assault, must be treated with respect.

The confirmation process must always be conducted, and appointments made, in a manner that gives Americans reason to trust the Supreme Court.  Some questions are so fundamental to judicial integrity that the Senate cannot rush past them without undermining the public’s confidence in the Court. This is particularly so for an appointment that will yield a deciding vote on women’s rights and myriad other questions of immense consequence in American lives.
 

Surprising that they would reveal their agenda like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Well it's no more farfetched than a Democratic senator and perspective presidential candidate claiming that Kavanaugh's failure to call for an FBI investigation of himself proves his guilt.

Do you have a cite of this Democratic senator claiming that Kavanaugh's failure to call for an FBI investigation of himself proves his guilt ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Do you have a cite of this Democratic senator claiming that Kavanaugh's failure to call for an FBI investigation of himself proves his guilt ?

725

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

725

This is where you actually read the quote, and then say you don't actually hold that opinion, you were just parroting someone else.

Or - how about "You Lie"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that the reaction of an innocent person? It is not.

Her statement is an implication saying that this is an area that needs to be followed up on which is exactly what Republicans are trying, tooth and nail, to avoid. It shows a weakness and weakness draws aggression.

In particular, Gillibrand didn't say that this proves his guilt. That's just Doggy stylin on your part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Dog said:

Surprising that they would reveal their agenda like that.

It is not suprising at all when you know what yer talking about. You've got to believe in the one and only real white God to want to go back to coat hanger abortions. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Is that the reaction of an innocent person? It is not.

Her statement is an implication saying that this is an area that needs to be followed up on which is exactly what Republicans are trying, tooth and nail, to avoid. It shows a weakness and weakness draws aggression.

In particular, Gillibrand didn't say that this proves his guilt. That's just Doggy stylin on your part.

 Bullshit....If it's not the reaction of an innocent person logic dictates that it's the reaction of a guilty person.  How about....."I believe her because she's telling the truth"  Is that an implication too?

Note to Raz'r.... the above is a quote of Gillibrand and represents her opinion, not mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

It is not suprising at all when you know what yer talking about. You've got to believe in the one and only real white God to want to go back to coat hanger abortions. 

 

 

Dude ....It goes to motive. They're saying investigating Kavanaugh it is more important than other defendants because he might rule in a way we don't like. So much for equal treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love how this is playing out.  Kavannaughty will get his precious SCOTUS seat, but he will be tainted like Thomas.  And it makes Trump and his cabal of deplorables look really really bad.  The mid-terms are gonna be spectacular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Apparently Dr. Ford is busy Monday but may have some time on Thursday.

Good.  Now we can get to the bottom of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Bitch McConnell stated that Kavanugh is going to be confirmed so everything else is just theater.  Reminds of a time protesting the rating hit with the PHRF committee. We were already the lowest rated in the US, the issue is we were winning too much. I saw very quickly they were just waiting for me to finish and not even listening. Just hurry up so we can go home.

The Yale  Law Faculty expressed their opinion, as far as an agenda since they are not involved in the confirmation not sure how it is even relevant. They do seem well informed FWIW.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Dude ....It goes to motive. They're saying investigating Kavanaugh it is more important than other defendants because he might rule in a way we don't like. So much for equal treatment.

He's certainly not a defendant yet and will not become one.

And you apparently have no sense whatsoever. It's Yale ffs, not Liberty U.

Me too is upon us, "dude." Get with the program. And how much of an attention whore are you? All you had to do is say let's wait and see. But you've chosen to argue with everyone. Something's not right about that. Jack has nothing on you.  AMF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dog said:

Apparently Dr. Ford is busy Monday but may have some time on Thursday.

Why the hurry there cowboy?  This here is a life appointment to the highest court in the land.  Gotta be right sure of everything.  So it takes a few days, weeks, months.  We got time.  How much time did we wait for Garland to get a vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Dog said:

 Bullshit....If it's not the reaction of an innocent person logic dictates that it's the reaction of a guilty person.  How about....."I believe her because she's telling the truth"  Is that an implication too?

Note to Raz'r.... the above is a quote of Gillibrand and represents her opinion, not mine.

If she wanted to say he was guilty then she could have. But she didn''t. She said Is that the reaction of an innocent person? It is not. Yeah, she believes her and doesn't believe him. But she doesn't pronounce him guilty as your words say that she did. She says that this merits investigation which is something y'all really don't want.

Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Dog said:

Apparently Dr. Ford is busy Monday but may have some time on Thursday.

1

Dr. Ford is meeting with the FBI in San Francisco per a news alert.  But according to Mitch McConnell Brett Kavanaugh will be on the Supreme Court, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Edited by badlatitude
added info and correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

IWhy is that?

Because it's a witch hunt, there was no collusion sexual assault. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites