nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Kavanaugh is a privileged prep schooler (sub category jock of the hard drinking variety) not a bible thumper
so a different set of stereotypes apply
Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
Kavanaugh is a privileged prep schooler (sub category jock of the hard drinking variety) not a bible thumper
so a different set of stereotypes apply
57Brave
Well-known member
John Aravosis
����
Verified account @aravosis
4h4 hours ago
Chuck Todd notes this morning:
How did Kavanaugh categorically deny being at the party where
Prof. Ford says the attack occurred, when Ford never mentioned
which party it was or even what date it was?
����
Verified account @aravosis
4h4 hours ago
Chuck Todd notes this morning:
How did Kavanaugh categorically deny being at the party where
Prof. Ford says the attack occurred, when Ford never mentioned
which party it was or even what date it was?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I think setting it up as a public he said/she said is a lose/lose proposition. If Mark Judge doesn’t testify, such a proceeding would be pretty worthless. An investigation would probably be of more probative value. Republicans don’t want that because their largest concern is the clock.
sturg33
I
What's the investigation supposed to be?
She didn't/couldn't give any specific details. FBI is supposed to go back 35 years and find out everyone who partied back then?
Can the FBI even do that in search of a crime against a minor 35 years later?
This is nothing but a stunt. If she won't testify, vote proceeds, he gets confirmed, dems claim repubs support rapists, and she goes on a book tour
She didn't/couldn't give any specific details. FBI is supposed to go back 35 years and find out everyone who partied back then?
Can the FBI even do that in search of a crime against a minor 35 years later?
This is nothing but a stunt. If she won't testify, vote proceeds, he gets confirmed, dems claim repubs support rapists, and she goes on a book tour
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
The details she can provide are scant, the one person she named as a witness denies knowledge, and now she won't testify without a long delay.
I don't know if it's a political stunt, but I know it looks like a political stunt.
Runnin
Well-known member
This is an example of how the right freaks out when faced with reality. "It's a stunt."
Are you saying that this woman cares so much about stopping Roe vs Wade being overturned that she made the whole thing up? And made it up back in 2012 when she told her therapist about it?
This is a lose/lose for the GOP. If they ram Kavanaugh through it will be equivalent to constitutional rape and the public will hold them accountable for years. Clarence Thomas was a mistake and this will be seen as another example of the ruling elite doing whatever it wants.
If Kavanaugh bows out, as he should and will eventually, the GOP base is gonna blame Trump. McConnell tried to warn him about nominating Kavanaugh and Trump went with his ego.
It wouldn't take the FBI long to gather some basic info to support or disclaim. Seems like Ford wanting the FBI to investigate scares the GOP. "She's telling the truth!"
Last edited:
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I do wonder if the flimsiness of this allegation is the reason that Feinstein didn't pursue it sooner. She had no choice but to hop on board once someone else was able to get a copy out into the wild, but you know she was looking at this thing like a live grenade while it was only up to her.
Runnin
Well-known member
With Kavanaugh being jammed into the system without full vetting and against common sense, the image is unfortunate, but impossible to miss.
If this "stunt" is legal and within constitutional rules, I'm all for it. Was refusing to vote on Merrick Garland not "a stunt"? Was the GOP's opposition to ACA not one giant political stunt, especially when they had no replacement? How about Trump's NK summit, the tarriffs, getting out of NAFTA, etc.?
I'd like to see more stunts from the Dems.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I dislike your use of the term because enough of this would lessen the impact of the word "rape," similar to how the impact of "racism" has been lessened.
Garland was obviously a stunt, but not one that sought to accuse him of a crime. I am surprised that someone I respect as much as you would lump the two together.
The GOP's opposition to ACA was based around keeping the federal government out of the health insurance industry, so a replacement plan would have been strange.
Are you unhappy with the terms of the new agreement with Mexico?
57Brave
Well-known member
My hometown is deep, as in up to their neck deep, in abusive priest scandals
For so long the allegations of catholic priests abusing underage boys and girls were considered "flimsy"
Claims against John Sandusky/ Bill Cosby/ Bill O / Roger Ailes etc etc etc were for so long a time were considered "flimsy"
Nesser from MSU. Accusations for years were dismissed as "flimsy"
Do we see a pattern emerging ?
For every Duke Lacrosse there are how many that substantiate out.
Dr Ford wants an investigation to create a level playing field. Where both parties are working off of one set facts.
Let me ask.
If she was making a "flimsy" accusation why is she demanding a thorough investigation ?
Wouldn't a thorough investigation reveal her "flimsy" ness ?
And why is (R) in such a hurry to ram ( hope here that word is appropriate in your eyes. I know you are conflicted with the word rape) this through
One school of thought is there is the fear that an investigation would reveal more than one instance .
Another school of thought is Kavanaugh has proven he is a liar.
If we have learned nothing else in the age of Trump it is lying to the FBI is a prosecutable crime
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
In retrospect, Dr Ford should have shared her information with the FBI when they were doing their background check.
Now its a mess. Both sides have some justification for their positions. The Republicans are not being unreasonable in seeing this as an attempt by the Democrats to string out the process. And Dr Ford is not unreasonable in wanting the FBI to investigate so that it is not mostly a he said she said situation.
Now its a mess. Both sides have some justification for their positions. The Republicans are not being unreasonable in seeing this as an attempt by the Democrats to string out the process. And Dr Ford is not unreasonable in wanting the FBI to investigate so that it is not mostly a he said she said situation.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I agree that "ram" seems appropriate. So would "rush", "hurry", "expedite", etc. The goal of the Rs to get this done prior to midterms is clear.
If she was making a "flimsy" accusation why is she demanding a thorough investigation ?
She can't recall where or when this happened, how she got there, and the only witness she named has denied knowledge. It was over 30 years ago and hasn't been investigated so there won't be a scrap of forensic evidence, so it's clear there won't be any type of "beyond a reasonable doubt" outcome. There is no shot at proving him guilty or at proving her story to be false. So the obvious goal of demanding a "thorough" investigation is to stall the process.
One school of thought is there is the fear that an investigation would reveal more than one instance
Yes, it is clear that the Ds are hoping that the FBI can cast a wide enough net to find someone, anyone, else to say bad things about him. Bonus points if it is something else that they can demand an investigation over.
I don't know if he's guilty, you don't know if he's guilty, no one in the Senate knows if he's guilty. Anything said beyond that is just partisan hackery.
Runnin
Well-known member
Testify to whom? Do you think a bunch grandstanding senators would be able to accomplish anything other than express their own partisan opinions? I don't blame her for wanting some corroboration, however flimsy, but I think she should go to Washington with her husband by her side. After all this she sort of owes it to Kavanaugh and the country.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I fully understand why she’s not willing to testify, publicly, in that venue.
sturg33
I
Ok. Then we have to move on.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
If I was her lawyer I would tell her to just stop answering if a Congressman starts grandstanding, badgering, or insults her. Tell them you will only answer relevant questions that arent disrespectful or meant to demean or defame her. Which we know many Republicans will do. Let them act like petulent children and take the high road. The people they are playing to wouldnt believe her story if she produced a video tape of the incident and even had Grandma Kavanaugh in the video confirming Bretts identity.