Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Future of the Supreme Court

The Future of the Supreme Court (Page 5)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2018, 08:02 PM
 
So the investigation is a sham already.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...-brett-n915061
The White House is limiting the scope of the FBI’s investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, multiple people briefed on the matter told NBC News.

While the FBI will examine the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, the bureau has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick…A White House official confirmed that Swetnick's claims will not be pursued as part of the reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh.
Instead of investigating Swetnick's claims, the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity. They characterized the White House instructions as a significant constraint on the FBI investigation and caution that such a limited scope, while not unusual in normal circumstances, may make it difficult to pursue additional leads in a case in which a Supreme Court nominee has been accused of sexual assault.
President Donald Trump said on Saturday that the FBI has "free reign" in the investigation.
If the FBI learns of others who can corroborate what the existing witnesses are saying, it is not clear whether agents will be able to contact them under the terms laid out by the White House, the two sources briefed on the matter said.

Some areas are off limits, the sources said.

But as of now, the FBI cannot ask the supermarket that employed Judge for records verifying when he was employed there, one of the sources was told. Ford said in congressional testimony Thursday that those records would help her narrow the time frame of the alleged incident which she recalls happening some time in the summer of 1982 in Montgomery County, Maryland.

Two sources familiar with the investigation said the FBI will also not be able to examine why Kavanaugh’s account of his drinking at Yale University differs from those of some former classmates, who have said he was known as a heavy drinker.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2018, 08:30 PM
 
Sounds like the White House believes the allegations. If Kavanaugh is innocent, why hog-tie the FBI? Shouldn't a clean investigation turn up any discrepancies in the accusations?
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2018, 10:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Sounds like the White House believes the allegations. If Kavanaugh is innocent, why hog-tie the FBI? Shouldn't a clean investigation turn up any discrepancies in the accusations?
Possibly. There would also be the possibility, if the FBI went wherever they could, of them digging-up more issues in other areas, like his alleged gambling problems. Sure would be inconvenient to find some Russian mafia bookies in his closet.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2018, 11:07 AM
 
If the FBI had a time limit only, they'd likely find enough to warrant extending it. Its all about rushing him through.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2018, 11:19 AM
 
I’m not sure what you guys think extensive FBI background checks do. Do you believe those look only into publically known information ?

-t
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2018, 12:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I’m not sure what you guys think extensive FBI background checks do. Do you believe those look only into publically known information ?
At the time the initial background checks were done, the allegations agains Kavanaugh had not yet been made public. There was no way for the FBI — or anyone else for that matter — to know.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Sounds like the White House believes the allegations. If Kavanaugh is innocent, why hog-tie the FBI? Shouldn't a clean investigation turn up any discrepancies in the accusations?
Disregarding the question whether you'd want to take the risk of giving someone such a unique a job as Supreme Court justice who has been credibly accused of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, I think it is also a strategic mistake by the White House. They want to push Kavanaugh through, and the FBI investigation is supposed to give the Republicans who are on the fence political cover. This blatantly politically motivated limitation to the investigation just keeps everything in the political arena for longer.

As an aside, I have to say, I don't think Kavanaugh gave himself any favors with that last Senate hearing. He blatantly lied about mostly inconsequential stuff* and did not show that he is able to control his emotions.

* Are we really supposed to believe he didn't have a blackout from drinking or that “Ralphing” was in connection with spicy food. Or that Renate Alumni was a reference to the great friendship he and his buddies had to that then-girl? Does he think the American people are morons?!?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2018, 01:47 PM
 
Woot. Double Post.

-t
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2018, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
At the time the initial background checks were done, the allegations agains Kavanaugh had not yet been made public. There was no way for the FBI — or anyone else for that matter — to know.


So they can only find things that are already k own ?

LMAO

-t
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2018, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I’m not sure what you guys think extensive FBI background checks do. Do you believe those look only into publically known information ?

-t
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post


So they can only find things that are already k own ?

LMAO

-t
I don't understand the argument being made here
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 12:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post


So they can only find things that are already k own ?

LMAO
Logic, surrender, you have been surrounded.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 09:23 AM
 
I'm sure if they had spoken to Ford, she'd have told them. Everyone else who was there is still pretending not to remember so the FBI can't have known. Its also not unthinkable that they too might have dismissed teenage "shenanigans" out of hand.

Guilty or not BK has exhibited extremely poor judgement and blatant partisanship throughout these hearings. He's clearly not fit to be on the SC.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 12:14 PM
 
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Sounds like the White House believes the allegations. If Kavanaugh is innocent, why hog-tie the FBI? Shouldn't a clean investigation turn up any discrepancies in the accusations?
Pres.Trump has tweeted that the FBI has not been restricted. They have talked to Ramirez.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 12:40 PM
 
My wife worked for Motorola’s Government Electronics Group, as did an aunt. When they did an FBI background check on the them, the FBI talked to neighbors, teachers, family members, friends, coworkers etc. They look into them as well. My brother applied for the Phoenix PD and was turned down because was “an associate of a known drug dealer.” This was a childhood friend who lived down the street. My father in law also had a security clearance for his job in CA. In both my wife and father in law’s case, the FBI also talked to people in IL where they originally from.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Pres.Trump has tweeted
That's enough for you? Trump tweeting something is enough that you'll believe it to be true, without any corroborating sources?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 04:01 PM
 
There are people out there who have said on record that even if Kav was guilty, they still want him on the court to kill Roe v Wade.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 04:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
That's enough for you? Ford claiming something is enough that you'll believe it to be true, without any corroborating sources?
hmmmmmm...
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
There are people out there who have said on record that even if Kav was guilty, they still want him on the court to kill Roe v Wade.
This is what it about. It would not matter if the FBI checked out For's allegation for a year, let alone a week. There were D senators stating they were opposing Kavanaugh as soon as he was nominated. The Demoncrats on the judiciary comittee were not going to vote for him under any circumstances.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 04:51 PM
 
So to be clear, Chongo, you're fine with a rapist on the bench? You don't care if it's true?

It's certainly clear he has anger management issues.

Also, Demoncrats is beneath you. Do better.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 05:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
So to be clear, Chongo, you're fine with a rapist on the bench? You don't care if it's true?
Did Ford say that she was raped? No. She alleges someone triedto rape her. Did you read the Mitchell memo?

It's certainly clear he has anger management issues.
.....and Keith Ellison doesn't?
There is such a thing as righteous anger. Even Jesus gets angry.




Also, Demoncrats is beneath you. Do better.
They are.
Caught in a Witch Hunt: USA Today Retracts Claim That Kavanaugh Should Stop Coaching Girls
On Friday, USA Today sports reporter Erik Brady suggested that Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh should not coach girls' basketball, at least not until the FBI investigation concludes, due to 36-year-old allegations he attempted to rape a teenage girl in high school. Facing sharp criticism, USA Today edited the article and deleted a tweet sharing it on Saturday.


Sorry to say this, it will not surprise when some claims from the well of the House or Senate he abuses his kids.

Text of Article 1, Section 6:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
There were D senators stating they were opposing Kavanaugh as soon as he was nominated. The Demoncrats on the judiciary comittee were not going to vote for him under any circumstances.
You're asserting that they didn't have good reasons to do so?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 06:41 PM
 
Ok, based on Chongo's testimony, should Jesus Christ ever be nominated for Supreme Court, put me down on record as saying his destruction of temple property make him unfit as a jurist.

Attempted rapist, sure, let's qualify my comment with that correction. Doesn't change. You think attempted rapists are AOK.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 07:32 PM
 
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1046825845371879430
Breaking News: The White House told the FBI to interview anyone it wants in the Kavanaugh investigation after a backlash from Democrats. But agents must finish by Friday.
Thank god for the media.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 07:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Ok, based on Chongo's testimony, should Jesus Christ ever be nominated for Supreme Court, put me down on record as saying his destruction of temple property make him unfit as a jurist.

Attempted rapist, sure, let's qualify my comment with that correction. Doesn't change. You think attempted rapists are AOK.
Do you have proof? Ford doesn’t. Did you read the Mitchell memo?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
You're asserting that they didn't have good reasons to do so?
Trump nominated him, and they perceive it changing the “balance of the court.” That is enough. Gorsuch did not threaten the balance of the court.
There were “protesters” waiting with “Stop ___________!” signs. It would not have mattered who was nominated, they were going to be opposed. I can’t wait until the time comes to fill Ginsberg’s seat That is going to make this pale in comparison. I hope Judge Barrett is ready for it.
( Last edited by Chongo; Oct 1, 2018 at 08:33 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2018, 08:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Do you have proof? Ford doesn’t.
When has that stopped you from believing something? (See: Seth Rich)
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 12:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Wait, another big caveat
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.e67be24b9af7
Even the broadened probe — which will now encompass the allegations of a third accuser — seemed to have limits that might fuel the controversy.

The FBI will not, for example, conduct an unfettered review of Kavanaugh’s youthful drinking or examine statements Kavanaugh made about his alcohol consumption during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to see if those answers were accurate or misleading, the people familiar with the matter said. The White House also could resist inquiries into new allegations, the people said.

But people familiar with the matter said agents will be allowed to question more witnesses with information on the sexual-misconduct allegations. Drinking is inextricably intertwined with the allegations Kavanaugh faces, so it would be impossible to avoid that topic entirely. Two people familiar with the interviews so far say agents have asked routine questions, including about alcohol use.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 02:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Trump nominated him, and they perceive it changing the “balance of the court.” That is enough. Gorsuch did not threaten the balance of the court.
There were “protesters” waiting with “Stop ___________!” signs. It would not have mattered who was nominated, they were going to be opposed. I can’t wait until the time comes to fill Ginsberg’s seat That is going to make this pale in comparison. I hope Judge Barrett is ready for it.
You case everything in terms of GOP winning/losing something, and I believe this clouds your judgement. Sexual assault is not a partisan issue.* The only reason why the Kavanaugh nomination has reached an impasse is because there are credible allegations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct. If Kavanaugh had the same clean record as Gorsuch, then Kavanaugh would have been confirmed already.

The Senate has to decide whether to grant President Trump's request to promote Kavanaugh from the second-highest court in the US to the highest. You don't apply the same burden of proof as you do in a criminal investigation, where you could deprive someone of his liberty. A promotion is a privilege, incarceration a punishment.

Even if all you care about is having a judge who votes for or against the causes that you want him or her to vote, there are other candidates out there who don't have Kavanaugh's baggage. The longer President Trump waits, the smaller the chance that another candidate will be confirmed. So the GOP's compulsive need to win every battle with the Democrats could end up costing them a nominee.


* If you think sexual assault is a partisan issue, then I would not want to be on the side that condones it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 03:33 AM
 


     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 05:16 AM
 
First of all, please don't troll by bringing Hillary Clinton into the discussion. Either you want to participate in this discussion or troll, but you can't have both.

If you weigh Ford's testimony with that of Kavanaugh, clearly Kavanaugh's is less credible:
- More women came forward with different accusations and no connection to Ford.
- He lied under oath about even small things, including his drinking habits, his “summer ski trips” and his admission to Yale. Telling such blatant lies is quite insulting to the American people.
- He was evasive even when questioned directly.
- He has reason to lie whereas there is no upside for Ford to come forward now.
- There is plenty of corroborating evidence of the circumstances, including a book published by the other person who was supposed to have been in the room at that time.
- He brought forth non-evidence in place of evidence. (Do you expect a teenager to put “attempted rape” in your calendar? Or that “he was a virgin” at that point.)
- He was belligerent and lost his temper during testimony.

Plus:
- Ford named other witnesses that could have been subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and brought in for questioning under oath. They could have substantiated either Ford's or Kavanaugh's side of the story. Of course, that wasn't Kavanaugh's choice, but the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but if the witnesses could provide testimony in favor of Kavanaugh, wouldn't you want them there?
- Kavanaugh comes across as someone with an alcohol problem. His obsession with beer seems rather odd at his age.
- Kavanaugh's partisan antiques clearly showed a lack of qualification as a Supreme Court Justice whose job it is to call balls and strikes.

When it comes to Ford's testimony:
- Statistically speaking, it is extremely unlikely that women falsely make up stories of sexual abuse.
- She was as consistent as expected given that the event happened more than 35 years ago.
- This is consistent with what we know about humans processing traumatic events.
- She was very forthcoming in her testimony. Even Republican senators said after the testimony that they “believed her” (although they seem to think she misremembered the actual person).
- There is zero upside for her to come forward and put herself on display in front of millions of people, and talk about one of her most difficult moments in life.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 06:21 AM
 
Chongo will say that the upside for Ford is the upside for the Democrats of blocking Kavanaugh's confirmation. Because he assumes that everyone else thinks the way he would when it comes to politics. Most hardcore conservatives are incapable of understanding, recognising or admitting when people are being objectively reasonable or fair if the outcome is not one they favour. Partisanship is a much more one-sided thing than most people will ever admit/realise.

It should surprise no-one that someone who immediately forgave the RCC for molesting children and covering it up would happily support an angry, violent, drunk rapist being appointed to the SC when abortion is on the table.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 06:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Do you have proof? Ford doesn’t. Did you read the Mitchell memo?
What proof would you expect under the circumstances?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 06:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Chongo will say that the upside for Ford is the upside for the Democrats of blocking Kavanaugh's confirmation.
I know you are not really arguing with my, but let me pre-empt that: That only shows an incidental upside to the Democrats, but that's not an upside to Ford. Precisely this is the logical error here, Chongo seems to conflate the two.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Because he assumes that everyone else thinks the way he would when it comes to politics. Most hardcore conservatives are incapable of understanding, recognising or admitting when people are being objectively reasonable or fair if the outcome is not one they favour. Partisanship is a much more one-sided thing than most people will ever admit/realise.
Elections are a way to weed out bad candidates, too. And there is a real downside to not wanting to admit that to yourself. The GOP sticking to Roy Moore, for example, cost the GOP a seat that under all other circumstances would have been a completely safe seat. (What was the adage again, the GOP could have nominated a bag of sugar and the bag of sugar would have been elected?)

It seems completely selfdestructive to make things that are obviously non-political (statutory rape is bad and sexual assault is bad) into something that is political by standing by objectively bad candidates. The cure is to propose and promote better candidates. Women are starting to remember that when they are asked to vote. And more and more men, who are not of the same vintage as the honorable members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, too.

Even just from a utilitarian point of view, pissing off women is a really dangerous electoral strategy: you can't gerrymander your way out of that, women are for all practical purposes equally distributed amongst the population.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 08:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
First of all, please don't troll by bringing Hillary Clinton into the discussion. Either you want to participate in this discussion or troll, but you can't have both.
Bill and Ted, not Hillary. Joy Behar said she would still vote him knowing he was credibly accused of rape, and MA voters still voted for Ted even after he left women to suffocate in a submerged car because "they voted her way"

If you weigh Ford's testimony with that of Kavanaugh, clearly Kavanaugh's is less credible:
That's up for the Senate to decide.

- More women came forward with different accusations and no connection to Ford.
Two. Ramirez, who called around trying to get people to confirm it was Kavanaugh and found no one. The NY times also tried to corroborate her story and failed, that's why they did not run it. The other, Swetnick, is already backtracking on details of her story. Of the four people Swetnick named, one is dead, one refuted her claim, and the other two cannot be found.

Over 60 of Kavanaugh's female friends from high school and college have come forward to support him.

- He lied under oath about even small things, including his drinking habits, his “summer ski trips” and his admission to Yale. Telling such blatant lies is quite insulting to the American people.
- He was evasive even when questioned directly.
- He has reason to lie whereas there is no upside for Ford to come forward now.
- There is plenty of corroborating evidence of the circumstances, including a book published by the other person who was supposed to have been in the room at that time.
- He brought forth non-evidence in place of evidence. (Do you expect a teenager to put “attempted rape” in your calendar? Or that “he was a virgin” at that point.)
- He was belligerent and lost his temper during testimony.
How would have expected him to act being accused of trying to rape someone? Had he not shown some type of emotion you would have said he was rehearsed or robotic in his answers.

Plus:
- Ford named other witnesses that could have been subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and brought in for questioning under oath. They could have substantiated either Ford's or Kavanaugh's side of the story. Of course, that wasn't Kavanaugh's choice, but the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but if the witnesses could provide testimony in favor of Kavanaugh, wouldn't you want them there?
All have submitted sworn affidavits that do not corroborate her story.


- Kavanaugh comes across as someone with an alcohol problem. His obsession with beer seems rather odd at his age.
- Kavanaugh's partisan antiques clearly showed a lack of qualification as a Supreme Court Justice whose job it is to call balls and strikes.
Six previous FBI background checks failed to uncover this?

When it comes to Ford's testimony:
- Statistically speaking, it is extremely unlikely that women falsely make up stories of sexual abuse.
- She was as consistent as expected given that the event happened more than 35 years ago.
- This is consistent with what we know about humans processing traumatic events.
- She was very forthcoming in her testimony. Even Republican senators said after the testimony that they “believed her” (although they seem to think she misremembered the actual person).


"nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard" (civil cases)

- There is zero upside for her to come forward and put herself on display in front of millions of people, and talk about one of her most difficult moments in life.

Five Go fund me accounts with $1,000,000 in them is not upside enough?
( Last edited by Chongo; Oct 2, 2018 at 09:01 AM. )
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 08:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post

It should surprise no-one that someone who immediately forgave the RCC for molesting children and covering it up would happily support an angry, violent, drunk rapist being appointed to the SC when abortion is on the table.
What took you so long?

I'll let Fr Lankeit clear this up for you.

     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 08:53 AM
 
You've posted the mitchell statement repeatedly, please stop. We've read it. We watched the hearings. It's exactly what you'd expect from the defense.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 09:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
You've posted the mitchell statement repeatedly, please stop. We've read it. We watched the hearings. It's exactly what you'd expect from the defense.
I thought it was a job interview.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
There were “protesters” waiting with “Stop ___________!” signs. It would not have mattered who was nominated, they were going to be opposed.
Do you believe that every nominee must be carefully and fairly considered, no matter who nominated them?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 10:57 AM
 
Chongo, is it safe to say that if the democrats had hired an investigator who only questioned Kavanaugh and then released a memo saying his denials were not credible, you'd give zero shits?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 11:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Bill and Ted, not Hillary.
Are either of those up for a seat at the Supreme Court? Thought as much. Stop trolling, please.
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
That's up for the Senate to decide.
The Senate decides whether or not to promote Kavanaugh, but we all have brains with which we can decide who we think is more credible.
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Two.
No, three in addition to Ford.
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
How would have expected him to act being accused of trying to rape someone? Had he not shown some type of emotion you would have said he was rehearsed or robotic in his answers.
He is applying for a job at the Supreme Court, so I would have liked him to stay calm, composed and treat this stoically. He could have said: “I didn't know how to deal with alcohol when I was younger. That was part of the culture at high school and at Yale. Yes, there were times when I drank so much I couldn't remember everything. Obviously I am an adult now and that is behind me. But I honestly don't remember attacking Mrs. Ford, and don't think I could have done something like that to her.” That would have been much more credible and in keeping with the demeanor of a Supreme Court Judge.

But instead he insisted he really likes beer, pretended not to know or understand certain things and insulted senators.
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Six previous FBI background checks failed to uncover this?
You don't need to do background checks, you just need to watch the hearing.
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
"nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard" (civil cases)
Apples and bowling balls. The burden of proof in this case is not the same as in a civil case. In a civil case Kavanaugh would be at risk to be held e. g. financially liable. Here, he wants to be promoted to one of the rarest and special jobs in the US, and that merits a very different analysis here.
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Five Go fund me accounts with $1,000,000 in them is not upside enough?
Are you for real? How many sexual abuse victims do you know? If you know any personally, stop posting here and ask them how many would want to tell their story on prime time TV, youtube, taken apart by millions of Americans, including threats and hate mail? How many of them would do that even if you offered them $1 million?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 11:51 AM
 
My wife is an attempted abuse/ abuse victim. Some nut job tried to abduct when she was getting in her car. She maced him and was able to get away. She also had an abusive boyfriend ( a Marine) who was an alcoholic. She had to get a restraining order against him. She also reported him to his commanding officer. Both occurred before we met. She thinks this all a scam and has nothing good to say about any of the women making the allegations.
( Last edited by Chongo; Oct 2, 2018 at 01:32 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
My wife. Some nut job tried to abduct when she was getting in her car. She maced him and was able to get away. She also had an abusive boyfriend ( a Marine) who was an alcoholic. She had to get a restraining order against him. She also reported him to his commanding officer. Both occurred before we met. She thinks this all a scam and has nothing good to say about any of the women making the allegations.
???
You're saying your wife would go through the ordeal Ford went through for a million dollars? I hope you just haven't carefully read my reply.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Oct 2, 2018 at 01:31 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
My wife is an attempted abuse/ abuse victim. Some nut job tried to abduct when she was getting in her car. She maced him and was able to get away. She also had an abusive boyfriend ( a Marine) who was an alcoholic. She had to get a restraining order against him. She also reported him to his commanding officer. Both occurred before we met. She thinks this all a scam and has nothing good to say about any of the women making the allegations.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
???
You're saying your wife would go through the ordeal Ford went through for a million dollars? I hope you just haven't carefully read my reply.
I corrected my reply.

All I know is she wants to send her story to Judge Pirro.

BTW do you think it’s OK for activists to show up at Judge Kavanuagh’s parish and disrupt Mass?
( Last edited by Chongo; Oct 2, 2018 at 01:45 PM. )
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 02:14 PM
 
Sorry your wife went through that. Hopefully the CO believed her and that guy got punished. I know several survivors of assault and the fear, who weren't believed. One friend even got asked out for a second date by someone who'd raped her. The guy didn't think he'd done anything wrong. She was scared of him and didn't have mace handy.

BTW, since we're engaging in whataboutism, is it ok for activists to show up at doctors offices and disrupt medical appointments?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post

BTW, since we're engaging in whataboutism, is it ok for activists to show up at doctors offices and disrupt medical appointments?
Define disrupt and medical appointment.
( Last edited by Chongo; Oct 2, 2018 at 04:30 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I corrected my reply.

All I know is she wants to send her story to Judge Pirro.
No, you still haven't answered the question I have raised: I'm not talking about a cushy atmosphere where she is asked questions by a sympathetic host. Would your wife be ok with death threats, public shaming, humiliation, being questioned in a hostile environment and not being believed by ~50 % of the population? What advice would you, as a loving husband, give to your wife, would you suggest that she go through what Ford is going through right now?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2018, 11:29 PM
 
So, Mr. "I don't know if Bart O' Kavanaugh refers to me, ask Mark Judge" signed his beach week letter Bart. (It also included the mysterious FFFFFF).

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ly-troubled-by
Three former law clerks for Brett Kavanaugh who wrote the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year expressing support for his nomination have written to clarify they are "deeply troubled" by the allegations of sexual assault against him.

In a letter to the Judiciary panel reported by HuffPost on Tuesday, former clerks Will Dreher, Bridget Fahey and Rakim Brooks said that an expanded FBI investigation into allegations from Christine Blasey Ford and two other women is merited.
His own clerks.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2018, 12:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So, Mr. "I don't know if Bart O' Kavanaugh refers to me, ask Mark Judge" signed his beach week letter Bart. (It also included the mysterious FFFFFF).
I was waiting for this.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2018, 01:43 AM
 
Council of Churches has come out against Kavanaugh. This could get interesting.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2018, 08:18 AM
 
McConnell has filed for cloture.
( Last edited by Chongo; Oct 4, 2018 at 11:58 AM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:05 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,