Spatial Ed

Kaven-No?

Recommended Posts

Just now, Spatial Ed said:

Seems fair.  I wonder what the GOP would have an issue with?

Worried that Judge won't lie for his old buddy.  So if they agree to his subpoena (which they won't but will just say her terms are unreasonable), they then need to start discrediting the guy they were using a few days ago as proof Kavanaugh did not do it.  Ford and her lawyers are pretty clever and the GOP will look silly when they turn down this offer.  

Share this post


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

Why do Republicans back this guy????
They could find 100 other judges that will vote their way without the rapey baggage.

Why did they back Bork? Yeah, it's hard to get more baggage for a judge than subverting the big C. When Richard Nixon tired of the Watergate investigation, he wanted Cox fired.Elliot Richardson refused and resigned. Ruckelshaus refused and resigned. Solicitor General Bork, sure. I'll do that.

Fast forward to the Starr investigation. Solicitor General Ken Starr was short list for the Supreme Court. The Starr 'investigation' was Republicans payback for Watergate. Of course, Starr wasn't going to get a Supreme Court nomination but his henchman Kavanaugh would.

Why do Republicans back this guy? Because they are this guy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

Worried that Judge won't lie for his old buddy.  So if they agree to his subpoena (which they won't but will just say her terms are unreasonable), they then need to start discrediting the guy they were using a few days ago as proof Kavanaugh did not do it.  Ford and her lawyers are pretty clever and the GOP will look silly when they turn down this offer.  

Testifying under oath, all we will get from Judge is "I don't recall".  But it will be good theatre.  Just the questions being asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It won't change the minds of the faithful an iota.

But it will provide a soapbox for the Dems.  

Share this post


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

Seems fair.  I wonder what the GOP would have an issue with?

No it’s not. Why should the accused testify first?  That’s totally against how the process works. It’s up to the acusser to make her claim and the defendant then rebuts it. Not fair in the slightest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that she’s insisting that only Senators can ask questions. Me thinks she wants them to “own it”. They (GOP Senators) may well refuse - they know the peril involved. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No it’s not. Why should the accused testify first?  That’s totally against how the process works. It’s up to the acusser to make her claim and the defendant then rebuts it. Not fair in the slightest. 

This isn't a trial.  Its testimony.  Order doesn't matter.  He gets to tell his story, she gets to tell hers.  Why do you have an issue with this?  Oh that's right, you have weird rape fantasies. Better lube up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Interesting that she’s insisting that only Senators can ask questions. Me thinks she wants them to “own it”. They (GOP Senators) may well refuse - they know the peril involved. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

 

The GOP senators wanted to have a female staffer ask the questions for fear of appearing like they are questioning some tart.  The visuals are powerful.  Especially if she handles herself well.

Share this post


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

No it’s not. Why should the accused testify first?  That’s totally against how the process works. It’s up to the acusser to make her claim and the defendant then rebuts it. Not fair in the slightest. 

The 'accused' has already testified first.

Share this post


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

The GOP senators wanted to have a female staffer ask the questions for fear of appearing like they are questioning some tart.  The visuals are powerful.  Especially if she handles herself well.

I have zero doubt she will be impressive.  I've talked with a few women over the past week and each had a story about a guy who tried to 'force' himself on them.  Ford's story will resonate with many female voters which is a group where  the GOP is already getting their ass handed to them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

I have zero doubt she will be impressive.  I've talked with a few women over the past week and each had a story about a guy who tried to 'force' himself on them.  Ford's story will resonate with many female voters which is a group where  the GOP is already getting their ass handed to them.  

Oh to have Al Franken on that committee!

Share this post


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

Interesting that she’s insisting that only Senators can ask questions. Me thinks she wants them to “own it”. They (GOP Senators) may well refuse - they know the peril involved. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

 

She doesn't want to be questioned by a woman, it's about optics.

Share this post


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

She doesn't want to be questioned by a woman, it's about optics.

She wants to be questioned by a senator.  Just like Kavanope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No it’s not. Why should the accused testify first?  That’s totally against how the process works. It’s up to the acusser to make her claim and the defendant then rebuts it. Not fair in the slightest. 

what a whiny little cuck you are.

Share this post


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

the second and fourth are purely political - the committee should say no to those.

The entire process is purely political.  What alternate reality are you from?

Share this post


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

The entire process is purely political.  What alternate reality are you from?

Exactly! These guys think there is a defendant, and it's a court, and that courtroom rules apply.

This is the Twitter-verse baby! 

Share this post


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

Surprising that they would reveal their agenda like that.

You have problems with telling the truth? Apparently they did not.

Share this post


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

Interesting that she’s insisting that only Senators can ask questions. Me thinks she wants them to “own it”. They (GOP Senators) may well refuse - they know the peril involved. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

 

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:
15 minutes ago, hermetic said:

the second and fourth are purely political - the committee should say no to those.

The entire process is purely political.  What alternate reality are you from?

that's why I wanted the fbi to do it all.  but that ain't happening

I wonder if a female repub senator not on the committee could be put up to ask all the questions - the judge and the doctor

Share this post


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

that's why I wanted the fbi to do it all.

I wonder if a female repub senator not on the committee could be put up to ask all the questions - the judge and the doctor

Why can't the GOP senators on the committee ask the same questions?  Why can't the GOP put some female senators on the committee?

Or just have Murkowski or Collins?  They seem to be interested in her story.

Share this post


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

Interesting that she’s insisting that only Senators can ask questions. Me thinks she wants them to “own it”. They (GOP Senators) may well refuse - they know the peril involved. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

 

 

1 hour ago, Dog said:

She doesn't want to be questioned by a woman, it's about optics.

Is she unaware that there are women in the Senate?   Or would that be you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Lets play this out a little....

You're right about the outcomes. That said, I think "we can impeach him later" is a weak excuse for appointing a person to the bench of the Supreme Court without investigating a claim that has come out before the vote on their suitability by the Senate. Delaying with the hope of a new Congressional/Presidential party in majority/office is a power play; pushing through a SCOTUS appointment without investigating claims against them is a power play. All things being equal, I don't see this as a power play as on-the-nose as the one levelled against Garland, against whom there were no claims of wrongdoing - merely nomination by a president of the wrong party/colour and a refusal to give him an up/down vote.

Good for the goose, good for the gander, and in this particular case - there is a means of restitution for the would-be-SCOTUS-justice caught in the middle of a political war. Should Kavanaugh lose because Ford can be shown a liar - he can seek redress for damage to reputation and opportunity through the courts. Don't know how much money a missed opportunity at SCOTUS would cost Ford, but I can imagine it would deter any future false claims in that regard.

 

8 hours ago, cmilliken said:

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 claims that Ford flip-flopped on wanting to testify to the committee before demanding an FBI investigation, I cannot find evidence of this claim. Merely people repeating it. What I can find is the FBI saying they won't investigate unless asked by the president - not them stating there isn't enough evidence to open an investigation. As others have stated, there isn't a reason for the FBI to come to that decision - outside this process, the local law enforcement are in charge of that determination. Legally, their involvement is due to investigating on behalf of the committee; not because they have local jurisdiction over sexual assault. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2018 at 1:14 PM, Dog said:

I'm for one am on record holding that Trump is unfit.

Is he fit to nominate candidates for the Supreme Court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, frankly, it’s more about the possibility (some might say probability) that he’s been lying. What he allegedly did at 17 is inexcusable but he could have handled his denials way better. And it’s not just possible (probable) lies about the alleged attempted rape, there are a few other incidences of questionable answers under oath. I think the man’s blinded by ambition.

Apart from that, I strongly disagree with his position that a President is essentially above the law while in office, and the likelihood that he represents the fifth vote to overturn Roe. I could go on......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours 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.

I agree - it is far-fetched. Especially as you have to go back in time to set up the therapist session or be VERY clued in to who was going to be nominated for this position before Trump was running for office to set it up. You're showing exactly why a woman who's seen Anita Blake's treatment might take this course of action when she finds out her name has been leaked. Which, believe it or not, is something that journalists often do make the point of notifying people it will be done - even if simply by asking them for comment before the article is published.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ford's attorney responds to Grassley, basically tells him to shove it up his ass. Should be online shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

I have zero doubt she will be impressive.  I've talked with a few women over the past week and each had a story about a guy who tried to 'force' himself on them.  Ford's story will resonate with many female voters which is a group where  the GOP is already getting their ass handed to them.  

My wife has told me horror stories about being chased around a conference table, and about being hit on by just about every boss she ever had up until about age 25. And this started when she was 15. By the time we were married, she had learned how to deal with these pricks. She won't tell me me their names, because she knows I'd make serious trouble for them and their marriages. Yes, my wife is smoking hot, and I am not a forgiving person where she or any children are concerned.

She also comes from a line of wealthy hard core straight party voting Republicans. As a matter of fact, Kavenaugh could almost be a doppelganger for my brother in law. The resemblance is remarkable, and like the nominee, has so many skeletons in his closet that he couldn't land his dream job with the FBI. But if he were nominated for the Supreme Court, he'd probably be a shoe in since youthful discretions -no matter how serious - or even later boys-will-be boys activities are ignored if you happen to be of a certain color, and a certain socioeconomic class.

It's simply amazing to me what the hard core partisans are willing to put up with. Of course we have the moral majority putting up with Reagan and his cheating on Jane Wyeman, Democrats putting up with Clinton and his many infidelities, Evangelicals supporting the drunk playboy George W. Bush, and doubling down on the adulterous, lying, pussy grabbing bankrupt Donald Trump.

Anita Hill's treatment started my wife voting a split ticket as I've always done. She told me the other day that if K. is confirmed, she'll vote straight Democratic for life, which I understand, but at the same time makes me sad.

Share this post


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

Is he fit to nominate candidates for the Supreme Court?

IMHO, no. And if his election does prove to aided by the Russians, and therefore illegitimate, every action or appointee by him, his administration or sent by congress to him for signature is also fruit of the poisonous tree. I know that this creates a constitutional crisis since not only the VP, but Trump's cabinet are also tainted by his illegitimacy.

All hail King Ryan. As Speaker of the House. Constitutionally speaking, he's the only legitimate president of this country.

God save King Paul!

Share this post


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

IMHO, no. And if his election does proved to aided by the Russians, and therefore illegitimate, every action or appointee by him, his administration or sent by congress to him for signature is also fruit of the poisonous tree. I know that this creates a constitutional crisis since not only the VP, but Trump's cabinet are also tainted by his illegitimacy.

All hail King Ryan. As Speaker of the House. Constitutionally speaking, he's the only legitimate president of this country.

God save King Paul!

Is this the part where he comes out as a drag queen to accept the crown? Ru Paul II? All hail!

Share this post


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

Is this the part where he comes out as a drag queen to accept the crown? Ru Paul II? All hail!

That would actually explain a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve two points to make. 

First, if I were a Republican on the committee I wouldn’t ask her any questions. I’d thank her for testifying and look her in the eye and tell her I appreciate her coming forward. 

Secondly, do we want to permit a single person with unsubstantiated claims from decades ago to force a branch of government to suspend its process & investigate a powerful figure? This establishes a precedent providing a compelling individual with a powerful tool over our elected leaders. If they can be so easily manipulated by heart-wrenching stories, are we the people in charge, or are those who usurp our powers not manipulating  our representatives? 

I believe the lady, but isn’t there a greater standard to be sought than this? Must there be such paltry evidence to force this drama?

This brings to mind “the Resistance” operating within the WH, sneakily protecting America from her selected leaders. This is governance by accusation & hashtag.

I trust it less than I trust a Trump.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Is he fit to nominate candidates for the Supreme Court?

 

30 minutes ago, Remodel said:

IMHO, no. And if his election does prove to aided by the Russians, and therefore illegitimate, every action or appointee by him, his administration or sent by congress to him for signature is also fruit of the poisonous tree. I know that this creates a constitutional crisis since not only the VP, but Trump's cabinet are also tainted by his illegitimacy.

All hail King Ryan. As Speaker of the House. Constitutionally speaking, he's the only legitimate president of this country.

God save King Paul!

I was directing the question to @Dog . I wanted to get the opinion of someone who defends Trump, but does not support him.

Share this post


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

This isn't a trial.  Its testimony.  Order doesn't matter.  He gets to tell his story, she gets to tell hers.  Why do you have an issue with this?  Oh that's right, you have weird rape fantasies. Better lube up.

No, because the accuser goes first to tell her story.  What can he "testify" to if he doesn't know what he's being accused of and the details therewith.  Testimony, trial..... same same.  There is a very specific reason it goes in that order.  How can you refute something before the accuser even says her piece?  

She is the only one with a "story" to tell.  His testimony is only about rebutting that story.  That's how it works.  

Share this post


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

Blasey Ford’s conditions for testifying -

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-ford-lays-out-conditions-for-senate-testimony/

  • Ford will not appear any sooner than next Thursday;
  • No questions to be asked at hearing by any outside counsel -- only by Senators;
  • Mark Judge must be subpoenaed;
  • Kavanaugh would testify first, then Ford would testify, and Kavanaugh would have no opportunity to respond or rebut;
  • The Friday deadline for her to provide written statement before the hearing would be waived;
  • Provide adequate security;
  • Only one pool camera in hearing room; 
  • Ford and Kavanaugh allotted the same amount of time to talk.

Furthermore..... I thought it was Ford and/or the Dems who wanted outside prosecutors ONLY doing the questioning.  What's changed? 

And it's ridiculous that Kav goes first before she even details the allegations.  The questions from the Senators should all come out of her testimony and her details.  How are they going to ask questions of K before they even know what she is going to say.  If she has nothing to hide, why is she insisting on going first.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

I hope the judiciary committee says thanks for your inputs Mrs Ford, we'll see you on Monday.  

Share this post


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

The 'accused' has already testified first.

No, she has absolutely not.  Not even close.  Statements to the press are not testimony under oath.  If you believe that, which I know you do not, then why hold this hearing at all?  By your standard, everyone has already said what they have to say.  

You are "happy jacking" it.

Share this post


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

Especially as you have to go back in time to set up the therapist session or be VERY clued in to who was going to be nominated for this position before Trump was running for office to set it up.

Except that the Therapists notes specifically do not have a name of the alleged attacker.  Kav's name was never mentioned in therapy.  It convenient her husband "remembers" the name but the therapist does not.  

I personally don't think Ford is deliberately lying.  But I think it absolutely conceivable that repressed memories from 30+ years ago that were discussed in therapy gets associated to someone she briefly knew back then but absolutely despises now because of his politics.  With enough mental gymnastics, it would not be hard to "remember" that this guy who goes against everything she believes in could have been the guy at the party who attacked her.  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Remodel said:

IMHO, no. And if his election does prove to aided by the Russians, and therefore illegitimate, every action or appointee by him, his administration or sent by congress to him for signature is also fruit of the poisonous tree. I know that this creates a constitutional crisis since not only the VP, but Trump's cabinet are also tainted by his illegitimacy.

All hail King Ryan. As Speaker of the House. Constitutionally speaking, he's the only legitimate president of this country.

God save King Paul!

This is an interesting take on what I also have pondered and wrote about in other threads.  IF cheeto is found to be guilty of collusion with the Rooskies to rig and/or influence the election - I think there will be a Constitutional crisis of epic proportions.  Fruit of the poisonous tree indeed.  Pence would certainly be illegitimate IMHO, since he was elected on the same ticket.  I don't see how he could legitimately govern if he was only there through the same cheating.  However, How far down that poison would go is a much tougher issue.  Does it negate ALL his appointments, EOs, bills he's signed, etc?  It would certainly call them into question.  But I think the danger to the country tearing itself apart if that were to happen - i.e.vacating ALL of his actions - would be far too great a risk to the Republic.  I think what would happen is that President Ryan or (shudder) Presnit nancy would stop there and get on with attempting to heal the country.

As to the specific question of the SCOTUS nominations (Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) - I think they are pretty safe.  Its not like cheeto actually thought these guys up by himself or was give the names by his boss putin.  They were already pre-selected and vetted by the Federalist Society long before "Orange Little Hands" even ran for office.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Furthermore..... I thought it was Ford and/or the Dems who wanted outside prosecutors ONLY doing the questioning.  What's changed? 

And it's ridiculous that Kav goes first before she even details the allegations. 

GOP discussed bringing in a female to address all questions.  Even those idiots know how it would look with no female presence on their team.  

Why should Kavanaugh care on the order?  He wasn't there and has never done anything similar to what she described in his life...right?  What, do you think she will make a statement and he'll have a moment of clarity and exclaim, now I remember, was that you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, phillysailor said:

I’ve two points to make. 

First, if I were a Republican on the committee I wouldn’t ask her any questions. I’d thank her for testifying and look her in the eye and tell her I appreciate her coming forward. 

Secondly, do we want to permit a single person with unsubstantiated claims from decades ago to force a branch of government to suspend its process & investigate a powerful figure? This establishes a precedent providing a compelling individual with a powerful tool over our elected leaders. If they can be so easily manipulated by heart-wrenching stories, are we the people in charge, or are those who usurp our powers not manipulating  our representatives? 

I believe the lady, but isn’t there a greater standard to be sought than this? Must there be such paltry evidence to force this drama?

This brings to mind “the Resistance” operating within the WH, sneakily protecting America from her selected leaders. This is governance by accusation & hashtag.

I trust it less than I trust a Trump.

Yep, this is what I've been saying all along.  

We should still, at the end of the day, be governed by the rule of law.  (ir)Regardless if you all don't think this hearing is an actual trial or not - we cannot let our gov't be run by hearsay and supposition.  This has always been and continues to be the danger of the METOO wave.  Women have the power to destroy someone's life with a simple accusation because everyone is too fucking afraid to push back and actually question it. 

I'm absolutely THRILLED that women are now being taken seriously and are fighting to change the sexist culture that has been present for so long.  But not every powerful man is a sexual predator and there needs to be a higher bar than just because she said so.  Its no different that when minorities get mad at someone or don't get their way and they level a racist charge at the offender.  As soon as that happens, we all knee jerk our way to soothe the accusers feelings rather than just impassionately looking at the facts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Except that the Therapists notes specifically do not have a name of the alleged attacker.  Kav's name was never mentioned in therapy.  It convenient her husband "remembers" the name but the therapist does not.

Two things make this perfectly believable. Firstly, the therapist sees many people over the years and is likely not to remember all the details of every client from six years ago. The therapist is not known to have any connection to Kavanaugh and so is not likely to connect him to anything. On the other hand, the husband only has the one wife. Which makes the name of the person sexually assaulting her far more important and memorable to him than to the therapist.

Secondly, the therapist was a couple's counsellor, not a rape crisis counsellor. What was important to their session at that time was not the name of the person that sexually assaulted Ford, but the fact that she was sexually assaulted at a young age and how that affected her ability to express intimacy with her husband. It is perfectly reasonable for a couple's counsellor not to be taking note of the person's name, it's not really relevant to the therapy. 

 

16 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 I personally don't think Ford is deliberately lying.  But I think it absolutely conceivable that repressed memories from 30+ years ago that were discussed in therapy gets associated to someone she briefly knew back then but absolutely despises now because of his politics.  With enough mental gymnastics, it would not be hard to "remember" that this guy who goes against everything she believes in could have been the guy at the party who attacked her.  Just saying.

As expected. I already stated yesterday, it's obvious that the settled conservative line will be that she's not lying - just confused. Let's them slide on the question of who is telling the truth whilst still implying that Ford is mentally unbalanced, lying, or both, That you're following the party line they've been blatantly laying out is a complete and total shock. Just saying.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

and that's why Jeffreaux et al are so pissed off.

I'm not the one who is pissed off here, rage boi.  I'm actually fairly sanguine about it.  I have no real fucks to give if K is confirmed or not.  There are a whole list of guys and gals who are ready to take his place. 

The only thing that really makes me mad about this is the continued deeping polarization of our political system by both sides with these gotcha dirty tricks.  Politics has always been messy, but we are reaching new depths of BS.  

I think Dems need to tread very carefully here.  You might tank K, but there WILL be another conservative justice right behind him who will be.  So you will gain nothing.  BUT...... as I've said before here in this thread, and as news orgs are starting to talk about, is that this circus the dems are pulling is going to mightily energize the otherwise lethargic GOP base for Nov.  The SCOTUS is the one thing that is a big deal to the GOP.  It is the ONLY reason evangelicals held their nose and voted cheeto in.  The only thing.  In the wake of this ambush of K, The GOP base will come out in droves and turn that "blue wave" into a Red tide.  And as you know, the bases really are the only ones who come out for the mid-terms.  Be careful what you ask for......  Just saying.

Share this post


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

Two things make this perfectly believable. Firstly, the therapist sees many people over the years and is likely not to remember all the details of every client from six years ago. The therapist is not known to have any connection to Kavanaugh and so is not likely to connect him to anything. On the other hand, the husband only has the one wife. Which makes the name of the person sexually assaulting her far more important and memorable to him than to the therapist.

Secondly, the therapist was a couple's counsellor, not a rape crisis counsellor. What was important to their session at that time was not the name of the person that sexually assaulted Ford, but the fact that she was sexually assaulted at a young age and how that affected her ability to express intimacy with her husband. It is perfectly reasonable for a couple's counsellor not to be taking note of the person's name, it's not really relevant to the therapy. 

I don't find fault in any of that above.  I was just pointing out that it's not the end all, be all of "proof".  Its very shaky circumstantial evidents, at best.

Share this post


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

I personally don't think Ford is deliberately lying.  But I think it absolutely conceivable that repressed memories from 30+ years ago that were discussed in therapy gets associated to someone she briefly knew back then but absolutely despises now because of his politics.  With enough mental gymnastics, it would not be hard to "remember" that this guy who goes against everything she believes in could have been the guy at the party who attacked her.  Just saying.

As expected. I already stated yesterday, it's obvious that the settled conservative line will be that she's not lying - just confused. Let's them slide on the question of who is telling the truth whilst still implying that Ford is mentally unbalanced, lying, or both, That you're following the party line they've been blatantly laying out is a complete and total shock. Just saying.

That would be a fair criticism if I had actually read the GOP "party Line" talking points.  I have not.  I came up with that all on my own.  Honest, Gov.

Share this post


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

That would be a fair criticism if I had actually read the GOP "party Line" talking points.  I have not.  I came up with that all on my own.  Honest, Gov.

Which would be a fair rebuttal had you not been reading these threads in which the party line had already been presented by others & cynically commented on by some of us. I'm sure you think you came up with it all on your own. Honest I do. 

Share this post


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

Which would be a fair rebuttal had you not been reading these threads in which the party line had already been presented by others & cynically commented on by some of us. I'm sure you think you came up with it all on your own. Honest I do. 

You assume that I bother to read every post in every thread.  

By that standard then, how is your's and your elk's comments here not just parroting the dem talking points??

Share this post


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

I don't find fault in any of that above.  I was just pointing out that it's not the end all, be all of "proof".  Its very shaky circumstantial evidents, at best.

Oh, I've already stipulated to that. Without having to call into question Ford or Kavanaugh's party loyalties or refer to how convenient any element of the situation it is for Republicans or Democrats.

Which is why I think an investigation is the only way to clear this mess up. Right now, unless Ford completely melts down under questioning, it's always going to look like it was swept under the rug to get Kavanaugh voted on without the FBI doing something about it (as the state gov in question has already ruled out getting the state police to look into it). If the FBI comes back with the same conclusion of there being not enough evidence to say Kavanaugh has lied - that's as good as it gets and would be considered a reasonable effort by me. 

Share this post


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

You assume that I bother to read every post in every thread.

No, I think that you bother to read the posts in the threads you respond in/to. Don't need to be reading every post in every thread to be reading the posts about this subject in the threads about this subject. But nice try.

 

3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

By that standard then, how is your's and your elk's comments here not just parroting the dem talking points??

Because the dems aren't saying what I am.

Share this post


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

Oh, I've already stipulated to that. Without having to call into question Ford or Kavanaugh's party loyalties or refer to how convenient any element of the situation it is for Republicans or Democrats.

Which is why I think an investigation is the only way to clear this mess up. Right now, unless Ford completely melts down under questioning, it's always going to look like it was swept under the rug to get Kavanaugh voted on without the FBI doing something about it (as the state gov in question has already ruled out getting the state police to look into it). If the FBI comes back with the same conclusion of there being not enough evidence to say Kavanaugh has lied - that's as good as it gets and would be considered a reasonable effort by me. 

I'm actually OK with an FBI or state investigation.  But there comes a time when the moment has passed.  The Dems had the ability to quietly do an investigation months ago to see if there was any "there" there.  I strongly suspect they don't want an FBI investigation anymore than the GOP does.  Opens up cans of worms that may not go their way.  I think they are bluffing only trying to make the GOP look bad if they refuse.  

I think the main reason the FBI should NOT do an investigation is that this is not a criminal case - it is a political case.  And to use the FBI for political purposes goes against everything they stand for.  It sets really bad precedence and they are supposed to be firewalled against being used for political purposes UNLESS the political case also involves potential criminal issues - as in the case of Hillary's emails.  Using the FBI now to investigate a HS incident from 35 years ago is blatantly and unequivocally a political act and one the FBI should stay away from.  The Senate has their own investigative powers and infrastructure - THEY should be the one doing any politically based investigation.  And the dems had their chance to do so as early as July.  

Share this post


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

I'm actually OK with an FBI or state investigation.  But there comes a time when the moment has passed.  The Dems had the ability to quietly do an investigation months ago to see if there was any "there" there.

Actually, no, the Dems couldn't do that without the committee's knowledge. That would mean letting the Republicans on the committee know the identity of the woman who asked to be anonymous. The FBI could not go about asking everyone out there if they were sexually assaulted by or knew someone sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh. 

 

Quote

I strongly suspect they don't want an FBI investigation anymore than the GOP does.  Opens up cans of worms that may not go their way.  I think they are bluffing only trying to make the GOP look bad if they refuse.

I strongly suspect you're right. The Democrats know there is a large guaranteed benefit without an investigation compared to a slightly better political payout if proven true and a devastating blowback should Ford prove to be lying. As such, for the Democratic Party, it probably is best left as tarnishing the Republicans and their choice hoping to disgust enough people for a midterms GOTV effort.

By the same token, not investigating it is the best option for the Republican Party. The upside of being vindicated is small (Ford's life is ruined) and the downside is that they're seen to have supported someone that once sexually assaulted a young girl and then lied about it seeking a seat on the SCOTUS bench (fucking devastating to their midterm chances).

However, Ford wants it investigated (which negates to large extent the claims she's a Dem plant, and no Jeffie, that's not saying you personally have accused her of that). I agree with her that the best way forward is to ignore what is best for both parties and have an objective investigation taken by the FBI. Committee Republicans stating there is nothing there to investigate is not the same as the FBI saying the same thing, even for the same reasons. The FBI has the people's respect, the partisan hacks on the committee... not so much.

 

Quote

 I think the main reason the FBI should NOT do an investigation is that this is not a criminal case - it is a political case.  And to use the FBI for political purposes goes against everything they stand for.

Um, not really. The FBI investigates what the committee needs them to and can, by the president's own concession, investigate the matter if he tells them to do so. 

Also, there is an accusation of crime here. Not just the sexual assault. Kavanaugh has denied to the committee that he has done this. If it can be shown he did, that's a recent crime completely under the FBI's purview. After Ford testifies, her sworn testimony will be mutually exclusive with Kavanaugh's meaning she is possibly guilty of a crime the FBI has jurisdiction over as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW:  The reason for Thursday is important.  Assuming Kavanaugh isn't ratified ahead of the hearing, then there's no time for him to get the votes before the Supreme court starts its next session to get him seated.  The SCOTUS apparently does not add new justices in the middle of a term so Kavanaugh wouldn't hear any cases this term.  That's important because if he's 'erased' later - say they try and impeach or something - having him actually as a judge that's heard or, god forbid, actually ruled on a case would create it's own weird ripple effect. Hence, Thursday.  More politics, no actual relevancy to truth.

Philly's right.  If you're a republican on that committee, you thank her for her testimony and move on.

In other news, we've got a general election coming up!  Everyone who's eligible got their registration updated and absentee request sent in?  No excuses not to vote.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Olsonist said:

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?

Gillibrand believes Ford because, as she tells it, "she's telling the truth" and because Kavanaugh has not called for an FBI investigation of himself....really? BJ believes his guilty because he went to a similar school and knew guys. KIS because he lived 30 minutes away and bad things happened. Now we have celebs going on record saying they believe her, based on what?...Leftists, the people who tell us they are the fact based ones, are prejudging this case...Fucking absurd.

So she didn't "pronounce" him guilty, how about she deems him guilty then?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grassley, (who it must be acknowledged, is an old white man) has granted another extension presumably to sometime today.

Share this post


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

Grassley, (who it must be acknowledged, is an old white man) has granted another extension presumably to sometime today.

I'm gonna bet money that he didn't type that :)  Some 20 year sold staffer fluent in english->twitter translation banged it out.

Just sayin...

FWIW, I think Dr. Ford wants to tell her side but she's surrounded herself with political hacks.  In the immortal words of Rahm Emanuel, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste".  That was her choice, so here we are.

 

 

Share this post


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

I’ve two points to make. 

First, if I were a Republican on the committee I wouldn’t ask her any questions. I’d thank her for testifying and look her in the eye and tell her I appreciate her coming forward. 

Secondly, do we want to permit a single person with unsubstantiated claims from decades ago to force a branch of government to suspend its process & investigate a powerful figure? This establishes a precedent providing a compelling individual with a powerful tool over our elected leaders. If they can be so easily manipulated by heart-wrenching stories, are we the people in charge, or are those who usurp our powers not manipulating  our representatives? 

I believe the lady, but isn’t there a greater standard to be sought than this? Must there be such paltry evidence to force this drama?

This brings to mind “the Resistance” operating within the WH, sneakily protecting America from her selected leaders. This is governance by accusation & hashtag.

I trust it less than I trust a Trump.

You make a very good point.

But..in this instance it's the nature of the "crime" and the nature of the appointment that are in conflict.

If it were someone accusing a potential appointee to say..The EPA? of an unprosecuted and unreported serious assault when they were 17..a reasonable person would think..too long ago, no temporal evidence..would it, if proven, impact on his or her impartiality and fitness for the position? Probably not.

In this case the type of accusation puts a question mark over his judgments, judgments that will  in one way or another effect 51% of the population, it needs to be cleared up.

Frankly, if he doesn't have the balls to make a simple statement like

" I have no recollection of this event, but if it did take place I humbly and deeply apololgise and hope this apology goes some small way in assuaging your hurt, young men do many cruel and stupid things and  though youth is no excuse, reflection on our past behaviours hopefully make us better men"

Then he's not fit for the role.

Share this post


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

Gillibrand believes Ford because, as she tells it, "she's telling the truth" and because Kavanaugh has not called for an FBI investigation of himself....really? BJ believes his guilty because he went to a similar school and knew guys. KIS because he lived 30 minutes away and bad things happened. Now we have celebs going on record saying they believe her, based on what?...Leftists, the people who tell us they are the fact based ones, are prejudging this case...Fucking absurd.

So she didn't "pronounce" him guilty, how about she deems him guilty then?

 

 

I believe her.  Her story is credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

...

Frankly, if he doesn't have the balls to make a simple statement like

" I have no recollection of this event, but if it did take place I humbly and deeply apololgise and hope this apology goes some small way in assuaging your hurt, young men do many cruel and stupid things and  though youth is no excuse, reflection on our past behaviours hopefully make us better men"

Then he's not fit for the role.

Good call Mel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Scourt.jpg

You really think she hasn’t been investigated and scrutinized six ways to Sunday?

Share this post


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

You really think she hasn’t been investigated and scrutinized six ways to Sunday?

HRC is the most investigated person on the planet at this point.

Share this post


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

Gillibrand believes Ford because, as she tells it, "she's telling the truth" and because Kavanaugh has not called for an FBI investigation of himself....really? BJ believes his guilty because he went to a similar school and knew guys. KIS because he lived 30 minutes away and bad things happened. Now we have celebs going on record saying they believe her, based on what?...Leftists, the people who tell us they are the fact based ones, are prejudging this case...Fucking absurd.

So she didn't "pronounce" him guilty, how about she deems him guilty then?

 

 

Occam it-

A - She is telling the truth

B - This is an elaborate conspiracy started years ago that involves a person destroying their life to replace one conservative judge with another conservative judge and also an amazing ability to predict events decades into the future*

* kind like birtherism now I think about it :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Occam it-

A - She is telling the truth

B - This is an elaborate conspiracy started years ago that involves a person destroying their life to replace one conservative judge with another conservative judge and also an amazing ability to predict events decades into the future*

* kind like birtherism now I think about it :rolleyes:

Thought provoking questions abound!

Share this post


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

You make a very good point.

But..in this instance it's the nature of the "crime" and the nature of the appointment that are in conflict.

If it were someone accusing a potential appointee to say..The EPA? of an unprosecuted and unreported serious assault when they were 17..a reasonable person would think..too long ago, no temporal evidence..would it, if proven, impact on his or her impartiality and fitness for the position? Probably not.

In this case the type of accusation puts a question mark over his judgments, judgments that will  in one way or another effect 51% of the population, it needs to be cleared up.

Frankly, if he doesn't have the balls to make a simple statement like

" I have no recollection of this event, but if it did take place I humbly and deeply apololgise and hope this apology goes some small way in assuaging your hurt, young men do many cruel and stupid things and  though youth is no excuse, reflection on our past behaviours hopefully make us better men"

Then he's not fit for the role.

Is this statement not simple enough?.... “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

 BTW  As a supreme court justice his decisions effect 100% of the population.

Share this post


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

Is this statement not simple enough?.... “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

If only that would work all the time there would be no need for lawyers.

Did you rob that bank? No I did not.

Case closed :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
19 hours ago, Olsonist said:

The 'accused' has already testified first.

No, she has absolutely not.  Not even close.  Statements to the press are not testimony under oath.  If you believe that, which I know you do not, then why hold this hearing at all?  By your standard, everyone has already said what they have to say.  

You are "happy jacking" it.

You may want to re-read what you wrote. The 'accused' is a guy named Kavanaugh. He really is a guy and he really has already testified first but I put 'accused' in quotation marks because he's actually nominated. However, setting what you wrote aside (because it didn't make any sense), this is not a trial and Senator Grassley is anything but an impartial judge. Any 'procedure' is chosen by Grassley on the fly and out of his ass. BTW, I think that I know more than you do about Senate confirmation hearing procedure because I know nothing and I know that. You, on the other hand, think that you know something and you don't.

Share this post


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

Is this statement not simple enough?.... “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

sure, if the GOP want to lose another swag of female votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm not the one who is pissed off here, rage boi.  I'm actually fairly sanguine about it.  I have no real fucks to give if K is confirmed or not.  There are a whole list of guys and gals who are ready to take his place. 

The only thing that really makes me mad about this is the continued deeping polarization of our political system by both sides with these gotcha dirty tricks.  Politics has always been messy, but we are reaching new depths of BS.  

I think Dems need to tread very carefully here.  You might tank K, but there WILL be another conservative justice right behind him who will be.  So you will gain nothing.  BUT...... as I've said before here in this thread, and as news orgs are starting to talk about, is that this circus the dems are pulling is going to mightily energize the otherwise lethargic GOP base for Nov.  The SCOTUS is the one thing that is a big deal to the GOP.  It is the ONLY reason evangelicals held their nose and voted cheeto in.  The only thing.  In the wake of this ambush of K, The GOP base will come out in droves and turn that "blue wave" into a Red tide.  And as you know, the bases really are the only ones who come out for the mid-terms.  Be careful what you ask for......  Just saying.

Why do the “Dems” have to tread carefully? He’s got the votes, he will be confitmed. Mitch made the call.

Share this post


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

sure, if the GOP want to lose another swag of female votes.

I don't know about Australian women but I trust most American women will respect a man's right to assert his innocence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanna be on the Supreme Court?

Sure

Did you assault that girl like she says you did?

Nope

Good enough for us - you're in :)

* women will respect the fuck out of this process for sure

Share this post


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

 BTW  As a supreme court justice his decisions effect 100% of the population.

I guarantee that nothing he does as a Justice will effect me.  Guarantee.  In fact, his actions won't effect any US citizen.  

Share this post


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

I don't know about Australian women but I trust most American women will respect a man's right to assert his innocence.

1 in 6 american women have suffered either completed or uncompleted rape. something like 1 in  2 women have suffered some kind of sexual attack or harassment  in their lives..I think they might not be too happy about proposed supreme court judges issuing such bald denials without also issuing a statement of support for victims of sexual assault..it's not just about HIM:rolleyes: 

Share this post


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

B - This is an elaborate conspiracy started years ago that involves a person destroying their life to replace one conservative judge with another conservative judge and also an amazing ability to predict events decades into the future*

* kind like birtherism now I think about it :rolleyes:

 

Decades?   Don't waste my time.  Dr. Ben "Sleepy" Carson just checked in with yet another example of the Trump Administration making mainstream news sites look like The Onion:

Ben Carson ties Kavanaugh allegation to centuries-old socialist group

Washington (CNN)Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson on Friday tied the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to a century-old plot by socialists.

"If you really understand the big picture of what's going on, then what's going on with Kavanaugh will make perfectly good sense to you," Carson said at the Values Voter Summit in Washington. "There have been people in this country for a very long time, going all the way back to the Fabians, people who've wanted to fundamentally change this country."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/politics/ben-carson-kavanaugh-fabians/index.html

Share this post


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

 

Decades?   Don't waste my time.  Dr. Ben "Sleepy" Carson just checked in with yet another example of the Trump Administration making mainstream news sites look like The Onion:

Ben Carson ties Kavanaugh allegation to centuries-old socialist group

Washington (CNN)Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson on Friday tied the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to a century-old plot by socialists.

"If you really understand the big picture of what's going on, then what's going on with Kavanaugh will make perfectly good sense to you," Carson said at the Values Voter Summit in Washington. "There have been people in this country for a very long time, going all the way back to the Fabians, people who've wanted to fundamentally change this country."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/politics/ben-carson-kavanaugh-fabians/index.html

FABIANS!! OH NO!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm not the one who is pissed off here, rage boi.  I'm actually fairly sanguine about it.  I have no real fucks to give if K is confirmed or not.  There are a whole list of guys and gals who are ready to take his place. 

The only thing that really makes me mad about this is the continued deeping polarization of our political system by both sides with these gotcha dirty tricks.  Politics has always been messy, but we are reaching new depths of BS.  

I think Dems need to tread very carefully here.  You might tank K, but there WILL be another conservative justice right behind him who will be.  So you will gain nothing.  BUT...... as I've said before here in this thread, and as news orgs are starting to talk about, is that this circus the dems are pulling is going to mightily energize the otherwise lethargic GOP base for Nov.  The SCOTUS is the one thing that is a big deal to the GOP.  It is the ONLY reason evangelicals held their nose and voted cheeto in.  The only thing.  In the wake of this ambush of K, The GOP base will come out in droves and turn that "blue wave" into a Red tide.  And as you know, the bases really are the only ones who come out for the mid-terms.  Be careful what you ask for......  Just saying.

"I'm sad it's deeply polarized, here's my polarized bullshit hot take on it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spokesman for GOP on Kavanaugh nomination resigns; has been accused of harassment in the past

Garrett Ventry, 29, who served as a communications aide to the committee chaired by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, had been helping coordinate the majority party's messaging in the wake of Christine Blasey Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her 36 years ago at a high school party. In a response to NBC News, Ventry denied any past "allegations of misconduct."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/spokesman-gop-kavanaugh-nomination-resigns-has-been-accused-harassment-past-n912156?cid=public-rss_20180922

 

Share this post


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

This is an interesting take on what I also have pondered and wrote about in other threads.  IF cheeto is found to be guilty of collusion with the Rooskies to rig and/or influence the election - I think there will be a Constitutional crisis of epic proportions.  Fruit of the poisonous tree indeed.  Pence would certainly be illegitimate IMHO, since he was elected on the same ticket.  I don't see how he could legitimately govern if he was only there through the same cheating.  However, How far down that poison would go is a much tougher issue.  Does it negate ALL his appointments, EOs, bills he's signed, etc?  It would certainly call them into question.  But I think the danger to the country tearing itself apart if that were to happen - i.e.vacating ALL of his actions - would be far too great a risk to the Republic.  I think what would happen is that President Ryan or (shudder) Presnit nancy would stop there and get on with attempting to heal the country.

As to the specific question of the SCOTUS nominations (Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) - I think they are pretty safe.  Its not like cheeto actually thought these guys up by himself or was give the names by his boss putin.  They were already pre-selected and vetted by the Federalist Society long before "Orange Little Hands" even ran for office.  

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/09/president-trumps-supreme-court-pick-kavanaugh/

Like Gorsuch, Trump selected Kavanaugh from a public list of potential Supreme Court nominees, although Kavanaugh was added to that list in late 2017. Trump made the list with the help of conservative organizations, including the Federalist Society.

Many people are saying he was added because of his feelings regarding the ability to indict a sitting president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mike G said:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/09/president-trumps-supreme-court-pick-kavanaugh/

Like Gorsuch, Trump selected Kavanaugh from a public list of potential Supreme Court nominees, although Kavanaugh was added to that list in late 2017. Trump made the list with the help of conservative organizations, including the Federalist Society.

Many people are saying he was added because of his feelings regarding the ability to indict a sitting president.

how will the other eight justices vote on this matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Garrett Ventry, a press adviser helping lead the Senate Judiciary Committee’s response to a sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, “has stepped down amid evidence he was fired from a previous political job in part because of a sexual harassment allegation against him,” NBC News reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites