EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 735
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
And now I know I should always keep a calendar around from "20 years" ago to be my alibi... So ridiculous. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
The second accuser has repeatedly declined to give a statement to the committee. She's also, like Ford, going back and forth about actually giving testimony. It's almost perfectly timed to delay proceedings instead of getting the truth out. Hearing Thursday, vote Friday. If there's any substance to the allegations, and if they have any evidence besides stories given after 2012, then their lawyers can try for criminal charges in Maryland. Instead of wanting to make the FBI some insane mockery of itself, pursuing nonfederal crime investigations. Here's to hoping that Grassley and McConnell keep their spines after giving into the first series of delays, and being rewarded with more intransigence. I'm also hoping since Kavanaugh released his calendars, that Ford will release her therapy notes she says corroborate her story to investigators. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 27 2018 00:46 On_Slaught wrote: Oh btw the Beach Week mentioned by Swetnick is actually in Kavanaugh's calendar (her affidavit was created before he released the calendar today). Funny stuff. Here is some corroboration that trains were not unfamiliar to kavanaugh's friend group. I guess the question now is just how bad the debauchery got. Even if Kavanaugh didnt participate but knew about it, its damning. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 27 2018 00:41 iamthedave wrote: In which direction, though? By the sources Plansix has linked, it seems to be finding a bit of traction in the public sphere. So far this reeks of Roy Moore; wagon circle to the end... until you don't anymore. Is it so unthinkable to just find a nominee who doesn't have allegations of sexual assault against them? At this point, surely you agree if they slam through the nomination it'd be horrible optics, yes? The optics of endless delays and uncredible allegations favor the Republicans. They'd be insane to cave at this point. Most people just want to hear her speak before the committee in proceedings that give the accused a better chance to clear his name. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 27 2018 01:03 Danglars wrote: The optics of endless delays and uncredible allegations favor the Republicans. They'd be insane to cave at this point. Most people just want to hear her speak before the committee in proceedings that give the accused a better chance to clear his name. Are you saying the Julie swetnick claims are not credible? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9639 Posts
On September 27 2018 00:55 Danglars wrote: Ideally, people who aren't political hacks like Feinstein bring up these accusations during hearings to allow time for Senate investigators to interview possible witnesses and classmates that might corroborate her story. To date, the only witnesses cited deny it happened. To date, there isn't a single person going on the record that Kavanaugh and Ford even knew each other, much less went to the same party. The second accuser has repeatedly declined to give a statement to the committee. She's also, like Ford, going back and forth about actually giving testimony. It's almost perfectly timed to delay proceedings instead of getting the truth out. Hearing Thursday, vote Friday. If there's any substance to the allegations, and if they have any evidence besides stories given after 2012, then their lawyers can try for criminal charges in Maryland. Instead of wanting to make the FBI some insane mockery of itself, pursuing nonfederal crime investigations. Here's to hoping that Grassley and McConnell keep their spines after giving into the first series of delays, and being rewarded with more intransigence. I'm also hoping since Kavanaugh released his calendars, that Ford will release her therapy notes she says corroborate her story to investigators. Whether you like it or not, witness testimony is evidence. that the GOP is pushing back against even allowing the testimony is not due to, or indicative of, a lack of evidence. feinstein being a political hack, unfortunately, is not a good defense to the allegations any more than the numerous provable lies from Kav. and the note to file criminal charges seems pretty ridiculous. there exists a statute of limitations. but that’s irrelevant, this isn’t about putting Kav in jail. it’s about keeping him off the bench. the note about the FBI and the criminal charges both only serves as a reminder that there is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of what you’re talking about. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 27 2018 00:58 JimmiC wrote: Please tell me that you don't think someones Calendar and Therapy notes are the same thing? One you hang on a wall for others to see, the other you say only because their is a expectation of complete privacy. Also if she does and it is in there does that change your opinion on if he should be confirmed? If not, which I believe to be likely, why drag her personal baggage more through the gutter? If she's marshalling these as facts that help prove she isn't making the thing up, or can't remember who did this, it is in her interest to release these. For all we know, they're different than the story she told the Washington Post, or they didn't mention Kavanaugh by name. I thought this was about finding out facts? Are you really suggesting she fail to disclose facts she's publicly stated support her? I'm very interested. On September 27 2018 01:00 On_Slaught wrote: @Danglers: Swetnick says she told 2 people at the time. Ford says she has 4 people she told about the assault before this whole debacle. Surely you agree that warrants questioning these witnesses, no? What about questioning Judge? Or is it more important to avoid missing some arbitrary deadline Republicans created? Yes, and I hope we can find these Swetnick witnesses that will agree that she did so. Remember, Ford claimed witnesses that went on to deny her claims. Now, an FBI background check that didn't uncover multiple gang rape parties going on in the 1980s that stayed secret for 30 years ... well, let's hear some witnesses. Multiple gang rape parties, in the 1980s, using quaaludes. Let's see if Dr. Ford knows about the gang rape parties and drugged victims? On September 27 2018 01:05 Mohdoo wrote: Are you saying the Julie swetnick claims are not credible? Hopefully she can provide witnesses, or a single new name besides Kavanaugh and Judge if this was some regular thing among high society kids that becomes high profile men of power. But no, this one just came out, and I was referring to the Ford drama off the past two weeks and not the latest 11th hour woman. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28784 Posts
But this Swetnick accusation is a wholly different level, because it describes repeated rape combined with real misogyny, not a drunk 17 year old failing to control his sexual urges one time. The timing coinciding with 'after fox interview' makes total sense too, watching a guy lie out of his teeth on tv is just the kind of trigger that would logically make someone come out with this type of story. I think it's time for republicans to back a different horse, I don't think this is a wise year to brand yourself the party that doesn't care about sexual abuse. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 27 2018 01:03 Danglars wrote: The optics of endless delays and uncredible allegations favor the Republicans. They'd be insane to cave at this point. Most people just want to hear her speak before the committee in proceedings that give the accused a better chance to clear his name. Uh... no, Danglars. The optics are the Republicans stonewalling a duo of women claiming to have been sexually abused by their preferred candidate for the Supreme Court of the United states of America, and now a third credible speaker in a federal agency testifying against him. What other interpretation is there of 'hearing Thursday, vote Friday'? Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see the optics that they've made their mind up and the hearing is just a formality to get done with so they can get about confirming the nomination of the possible sexual abuser to the Supreme Court. How can you be so dense in the post #MeToo landscape? Why is it so vital to slam this nomination through? How would an - at this point entirely justifiable - delay be anything other than a positive, because it would show the party of law and order cares about a series of serious allegations pertaining to law and order? You've got three women who've come forward now. Insanity would be ignoring them. And it's been a week. A WEEK. How is that 'endless delays'? And if it's all bunkum and they're making it up, you can happily crucify them for it and come out smelling of roses. Is there just some instinct in you Republicans to always make the most awful decisions possible? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
On September 27 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote: Why would an FBI background check reveal any of these claims? Folks are just laying plain how little they understand the process; many seem to think that standard FBI background checks involve some kind of deep, history-searching investigation as opposed to what they actually consist of, a bunch of database checks and interviews of contemporaneous friends, associates, and family. The allegations against Kav the chav regard events and individuals that would almost certainly not come up in a standard check. | ||
| ||
