|
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 September 27 2018 01:25 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 01:18 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 00:58 JimmiC wrote: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. 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? Yes I am really suggesting that you used a false equivalent when you stated that since K showed his Calendar she should show her therapy notes. Here I will make you a deal. I will post a picture of my elbow and you post a picture of your wang? Fair we both posted something, or are they not equivalent. I would be fine with having the therapist confirm if Ford was comfortable with that. Or releasing part of the notes that were applicable, but than since your mind is already made up why would that matter? You would call it false with out all, and than as I mentioned and you avoided, even if you saw the notes your mind wouldn't be changed. You are just asking for things you think she is not willing to give up, to try to confirm what it is that you already believed. We are at 3 now, is this enough does it need to hit 5 or 10? I could care less if this guy fit my political leanings, if he drugged and ran trains on women, he is a bad person and not fit for the position.
Releasing the part of the notes that were applicable is fine. I'm a little puzzled that you think I would not be satisfied with that, considering that I brought it up in reference to corroborating her 6-year claims with evidence. But whatever.
It takes more than one person agreeing with at least one story. Dr Ford did not say she was aware of a secretive gang squad at parties. Swetnick doesn't have witness corroboration at this moment (you know, the whole claims made the day before a hearing thing that's the new normal). Swetnick brings up her allegations that there are dozens of other victims of this gang rape scheme that never came up in 6 previous FBI background checks that also didn't come up from the time he was nominated by Trump to the day before the twice rescheduled hearing.
If he's really targeting young women in high school with drugs and alcohol and enabling a train of men to gang-rape them, let's hear corroboration.
|
On September 27 2018 01:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The people relying on the FBI background checks as proof these claims are false never really engage with teh idea that the FBI checks might not be that thorough.
|
On September 27 2018 01:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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.
As far as I know, the democrats already branded them as such when they voted Trump in.
|
|
|
On September 27 2018 01:30 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 01:03 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 00:41 iamthedave wrote:On September 27 2018 00:06 Danglars wrote:Senate Judiciary staff are being reported to say they've asked Ramirez, through her lawyers, to provide a statement or any corroborating evidence to the committee five times now. Every time she's declined. What's interesting is that red-state Democratic Senators have continued to be very quiet on the allegations. Manchin is out just hoping for a "fair, open and civil hearing" and that the allegations haven't made him any less likely to vote against Kavanaugh than he was two weeks ago. Heitkamp declined to discuss the allegations. Donnelly hasn't talked to the press about it, but his chief of staff noted that Kavanaugh has support within the state. ( Politico) It's already a rallying cry for conservatives who say the delay tactics and uncorroborated smears make the proceedings a big joke. This could be a deciding issue for the vulnerable seats in the Senate. 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. 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?
No, the women have had plenty of time to make statements and have refused to multiple times to delay proceedings. What part of the multiple delays up to this point to accommodate everything do you not understand?
If they wanted to slam this through, the original vote two weeks ago or the vote last week would've occurred. You're simply lying and misrepresenting the truth.
Kavanaugh was nominated around two months ago. These accusations were kept hidden until weeks ago. The latest was made a day before a hearing.
|
On September 27 2018 01:38 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 01:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. As far as I know, the democrats already branded them as such when they voted Trump in.
Meh, they branded themselves that when they rallied behind Mr. Grab-Em-By-The-Pussy.
|
On September 27 2018 01:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 01:30 iamthedave wrote:On September 27 2018 01:03 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 00:41 iamthedave wrote:On September 27 2018 00:06 Danglars wrote:Senate Judiciary staff are being reported to say they've asked Ramirez, through her lawyers, to provide a statement or any corroborating evidence to the committee five times now. Every time she's declined. What's interesting is that red-state Democratic Senators have continued to be very quiet on the allegations. Manchin is out just hoping for a "fair, open and civil hearing" and that the allegations haven't made him any less likely to vote against Kavanaugh than he was two weeks ago. Heitkamp declined to discuss the allegations. Donnelly hasn't talked to the press about it, but his chief of staff noted that Kavanaugh has support within the state. ( Politico) It's already a rallying cry for conservatives who say the delay tactics and uncorroborated smears make the proceedings a big joke. This could be a deciding issue for the vulnerable seats in the Senate. 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. 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? No, the women have had plenty of time to make statements and have refused to multiple times to delay proceedings. What part of the multiple delays up to this point to accommodate everything do you not understand? If they wanted to slam this through, the original vote two weeks ago or the vote last week would've occurred. You're simply lying and misrepresenting the truth. Kavanaugh was nominated around two months ago. These accusations were kept hidden until weeks ago. The latest was made a day before a hearing.
So the women are lying in an effort to delay the process? Or are the claims creditable and should be looked into?
|
United States44189 Posts
On September 27 2018 01:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 01:31 farvacola wrote: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. The people relying on the FBI background checks as proof these claims are false never really engage with teh idea that the FBI checks might not be that thorough.
Except when the FBI find Hillary did nothing wrong. Schrodinger’s FBI.
|
On September 27 2018 01:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 01:37 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 01:25 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 01:18 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 00:58 JimmiC wrote: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. 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? Yes I am really suggesting that you used a false equivalent when you stated that since K showed his Calendar she should show her therapy notes. Here I will make you a deal. I will post a picture of my elbow and you post a picture of your wang? Fair we both posted something, or are they not equivalent. I would be fine with having the therapist confirm if Ford was comfortable with that. Or releasing part of the notes that were applicable, but than since your mind is already made up why would that matter? You would call it false with out all, and than as I mentioned and you avoided, even if you saw the notes your mind wouldn't be changed. You are just asking for things you think she is not willing to give up, to try to confirm what it is that you already believed. We are at 3 now, is this enough does it need to hit 5 or 10? I could care less if this guy fit my political leanings, if he drugged and ran trains on women, he is a bad person and not fit for the position. Releasing the part of the notes that were applicable is fine. I'm a little puzzled that you think I would not be satisfied with that, considering that I brought it up in reference to corroborating her 6-year claims with evidence. But whatever. It takes more than one person agreeing with at least one story. Dr Ford did not say she was aware of a secretive gang squad at parties. Swetnick doesn't have witness corroboration at this moment (you know, the whole claims made the day before a hearing thing that's the new normal). Swetnick brings up her allegations that there are dozens of other victims of this gang rape scheme that never came up in 6 previous FBI background checks that also didn't come up from the time he was nominated by Trump to the day before the twice rescheduled hearing. If he's really targeting young women in high school with drugs and alcohol and enabling a train of men to gang-rape them, let's hear corroboration. Many people have explained why this would not come up in standard background checks. So if Ford releases those notes and it comes out that she did make this accusation 6 years ago you would agree that he should not be the nest SCOTUS?
She should do it to clarify conflicting reports at who was present. She told her therapist four boys were present, not two as she now claims. She claims she was in her late teens, not 15 as she now claims.
The big question is if she's willing to accuse Kavanaugh in sworn testimony under penalty of perjury. We'll see if she can clarify these details.
Surely in the MeToo era, all these other dozens of victims from Swetnick testimony will corroborate a series of drug-induced gang rapes that involved elite people now in powerful positions across the country. Let's hear some witnesses that actually corroborate the story. This is the kind of story that sends multiple people to PRISON, not destroys a judge's nomination and credibility. Ford's witnesses didn't remember the party, even her female witness. Not that there were dozens of these parties with dozens of these victims and this one was unremarkable.
|
On September 27 2018 01:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 01:30 iamthedave wrote:On September 27 2018 01:03 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 00:41 iamthedave wrote:On September 27 2018 00:06 Danglars wrote:Senate Judiciary staff are being reported to say they've asked Ramirez, through her lawyers, to provide a statement or any corroborating evidence to the committee five times now. Every time she's declined. What's interesting is that red-state Democratic Senators have continued to be very quiet on the allegations. Manchin is out just hoping for a "fair, open and civil hearing" and that the allegations haven't made him any less likely to vote against Kavanaugh than he was two weeks ago. Heitkamp declined to discuss the allegations. Donnelly hasn't talked to the press about it, but his chief of staff noted that Kavanaugh has support within the state. ( Politico) It's already a rallying cry for conservatives who say the delay tactics and uncorroborated smears make the proceedings a big joke. This could be a deciding issue for the vulnerable seats in the Senate. 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. 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? No, the women have had plenty of time to make statements and have refused to multiple times to delay proceedings. What part of the multiple delays up to this point to accommodate everything do you not understand? If they wanted to slam this through, the original vote two weeks ago or the vote last week would've occurred. You're simply lying and misrepresenting the truth. Kavanaugh was nominated around two months ago. These accusations were kept hidden until weeks ago. The latest was made a day before a hearing.
Its disengenuous to say they were all being kept hidden. Ramirez might have thought it wasn't a big enough deal to bring up. Yet when she heard Ford she decided she should add her incident. Swetnick, like was said last page, might have been prompted to speak up only after Kavanaugh's lie filled Fox Interview despite the danger to her career this poses. It isnt unreasonable to say the most recent 2 only came out late because Ford came out late.
I agree Ford should have come our sooner but it is what it is.
|
On September 27 2018 01:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 01:38 Plansix wrote:On September 27 2018 01:31 farvacola wrote: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. The people relying on the FBI background checks as proof these claims are false never really engage with teh idea that the FBI checks might not be that thorough. Except when the FBI find Hillary did nothing wrong. Schrodinger’s FBI.
Oh yes, then the FBI was wrong to do exactly what the AG told them to do, which was make a determination if Hillary should be charged or not. The AG under Obama, that congress said over and over couldn't be impartial and was to biased. And plan that Congress liked because the FBI is filled with republicans and they assumed the Republicans would charge Clinton. They liked it right up until the FBI didn't charge her.
|
|
|
On September 27 2018 01:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 01:46 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 01:39 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 01:37 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 01:25 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 01:18 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 00:58 JimmiC wrote: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. 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? Yes I am really suggesting that you used a false equivalent when you stated that since K showed his Calendar she should show her therapy notes. Here I will make you a deal. I will post a picture of my elbow and you post a picture of your wang? Fair we both posted something, or are they not equivalent. I would be fine with having the therapist confirm if Ford was comfortable with that. Or releasing part of the notes that were applicable, but than since your mind is already made up why would that matter? You would call it false with out all, and than as I mentioned and you avoided, even if you saw the notes your mind wouldn't be changed. You are just asking for things you think she is not willing to give up, to try to confirm what it is that you already believed. We are at 3 now, is this enough does it need to hit 5 or 10? I could care less if this guy fit my political leanings, if he drugged and ran trains on women, he is a bad person and not fit for the position. Releasing the part of the notes that were applicable is fine. I'm a little puzzled that you think I would not be satisfied with that, considering that I brought it up in reference to corroborating her 6-year claims with evidence. But whatever. It takes more than one person agreeing with at least one story. Dr Ford did not say she was aware of a secretive gang squad at parties. Swetnick doesn't have witness corroboration at this moment (you know, the whole claims made the day before a hearing thing that's the new normal). Swetnick brings up her allegations that there are dozens of other victims of this gang rape scheme that never came up in 6 previous FBI background checks that also didn't come up from the time he was nominated by Trump to the day before the twice rescheduled hearing. If he's really targeting young women in high school with drugs and alcohol and enabling a train of men to gang-rape them, let's hear corroboration. Many people have explained why this would not come up in standard background checks. So if Ford releases those notes and it comes out that she did make this accusation 6 years ago you would agree that he should not be the nest SCOTUS? She should do it to clarify conflicting reports at who was present. She told her therapist four boys were present, not two as she now claims. She claims she was in her late teens, not 15 as she now claims. The big question is if she's willing to accuse Kavanaugh in sworn testimony under penalty of perjury. We'll see if she can clarify these details. This is my point, she should not release her extremely personal notes because they won't change anyone's mind. You can dance around it all you want, but those notes being in or out are not a silver bullet for either side. Also, your really thinking it is false because she said late teens and it was 15, and you want consider that mid teens? The problem is you are looking for reasons for this to be false, not looking to see what really happened. The other side is also guilty of looking for it to be true. What would be lovely is if everyone took a breath and looked into all of this to see what is true or at least most likely. It is scary to me that even something as universal as sexual assault can be so politicized.
The therapist notes do nothing but hurt her credibility, so she needs to be open about it. Here's the notes, here's what I thought happened then, here's what I now remember happening.
I'm looking for witnesses and people that were there that can corroborate the story. The political timing and lack of credibility of Ford and Ramirez are disturbing. Your accusations that I'm "looking for reasons for this to be false" are disturbing. I don't permit plain smears to sway judicial nominees unless there's some substance, corroborating evidence, stuff like that to be present. You're plainly saying that the lack of evidence and the shifting stories of accusers should not affect my perspective on the matter. That's injustice and I suspect you know it. Reputations are at stake here.
On September 27 2018 01:48 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 01:40 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 01:30 iamthedave wrote:On September 27 2018 01:03 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 00:41 iamthedave wrote:On September 27 2018 00:06 Danglars wrote:Senate Judiciary staff are being reported to say they've asked Ramirez, through her lawyers, to provide a statement or any corroborating evidence to the committee five times now. Every time she's declined. What's interesting is that red-state Democratic Senators have continued to be very quiet on the allegations. Manchin is out just hoping for a "fair, open and civil hearing" and that the allegations haven't made him any less likely to vote against Kavanaugh than he was two weeks ago. Heitkamp declined to discuss the allegations. Donnelly hasn't talked to the press about it, but his chief of staff noted that Kavanaugh has support within the state. ( Politico) It's already a rallying cry for conservatives who say the delay tactics and uncorroborated smears make the proceedings a big joke. This could be a deciding issue for the vulnerable seats in the Senate. 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. 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? No, the women have had plenty of time to make statements and have refused to multiple times to delay proceedings. What part of the multiple delays up to this point to accommodate everything do you not understand? If they wanted to slam this through, the original vote two weeks ago or the vote last week would've occurred. You're simply lying and misrepresenting the truth. Kavanaugh was nominated around two months ago. These accusations were kept hidden until weeks ago. The latest was made a day before a hearing. Its disengenuous to say they were all being kept hidden. Ramirez might have thought it wasn't a big enough deal to bring up. Yet when she heard Ford she decided she should add her incident. Swetnick, like was said last page, might have been prompted to speak up only after Kavanaugh's lie filled Fox Interview despite the danger to her career this poses. It isnt unreasonable to say the most recent 2 only came out late because Ford came out late. I agree Ford should have come our sooner but it is what it is.
You're saying reasons why you think they were and should've been hidden. A gang rape ring of college frat boys does not trigger release based on an interview. You're basically saying society is tolerant of gang rape, so it's only natural that Swetnick waited until now. It doesn't add up and your stories are frankly unbelievable. The only believable part is Ford being misled by Feinstein, her rep, and her lawyer that her confidentiality might be respected while also stopping Kavanaugh's nomination.
|
In non-Kavanaugh news, Trump just accused China of trying to interfere with the 2018 election to the benefit of the Democrats. Looks like we may getting a sneak peak at his defense when Republicans get crushed in the House.
And before you ask, no be did not give any evidence.
|
Sure I'll buy that this is all politically motivated and likely engineered to have maximum political impact, but at the end of the day you have three women staking their lives and reputations on this. Very hard to believe they would do that unless this is something they truly believe in, or George Soros is waiting with 8 figure checks for them. Kavanaugh has also acted like a guilty man every step of the way. I am thoroughly convinced he has skeletons in his closet.
|
People talk about investigating it, but what is there to find except some very hazy 35 year old memories? It's such a long time ago. The guy is probably a scumbag but what else will investigating add to that?
And, devils advocating a bit: Meanwhile the sitting president is a self-admitted pussy grabber with probably way more recent 'missteps'. If he's still allowed to be president then why would Kavanaugh be hindered by this stuff from his teenage years?
|
On September 27 2018 01:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 01:51 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 01:46 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 01:39 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 01:37 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 01:25 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 01:18 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 00:58 JimmiC wrote: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. 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? Yes I am really suggesting that you used a false equivalent when you stated that since K showed his Calendar she should show her therapy notes. Here I will make you a deal. I will post a picture of my elbow and you post a picture of your wang? Fair we both posted something, or are they not equivalent. I would be fine with having the therapist confirm if Ford was comfortable with that. Or releasing part of the notes that were applicable, but than since your mind is already made up why would that matter? You would call it false with out all, and than as I mentioned and you avoided, even if you saw the notes your mind wouldn't be changed. You are just asking for things you think she is not willing to give up, to try to confirm what it is that you already believed. We are at 3 now, is this enough does it need to hit 5 or 10? I could care less if this guy fit my political leanings, if he drugged and ran trains on women, he is a bad person and not fit for the position. Releasing the part of the notes that were applicable is fine. I'm a little puzzled that you think I would not be satisfied with that, considering that I brought it up in reference to corroborating her 6-year claims with evidence. But whatever. It takes more than one person agreeing with at least one story. Dr Ford did not say she was aware of a secretive gang squad at parties. Swetnick doesn't have witness corroboration at this moment (you know, the whole claims made the day before a hearing thing that's the new normal). Swetnick brings up her allegations that there are dozens of other victims of this gang rape scheme that never came up in 6 previous FBI background checks that also didn't come up from the time he was nominated by Trump to the day before the twice rescheduled hearing. If he's really targeting young women in high school with drugs and alcohol and enabling a train of men to gang-rape them, let's hear corroboration. Many people have explained why this would not come up in standard background checks. So if Ford releases those notes and it comes out that she did make this accusation 6 years ago you would agree that he should not be the nest SCOTUS? She should do it to clarify conflicting reports at who was present. She told her therapist four boys were present, not two as she now claims. She claims she was in her late teens, not 15 as she now claims. The big question is if she's willing to accuse Kavanaugh in sworn testimony under penalty of perjury. We'll see if she can clarify these details. This is my point, she should not release her extremely personal notes because they won't change anyone's mind. You can dance around it all you want, but those notes being in or out are not a silver bullet for either side. Also, your really thinking it is false because she said late teens and it was 15, and you want consider that mid teens? The problem is you are looking for reasons for this to be false, not looking to see what really happened. The other side is also guilty of looking for it to be true. What would be lovely is if everyone took a breath and looked into all of this to see what is true or at least most likely. It is scary to me that even something as universal as sexual assault can be so politicized. The therapist notes do nothing but hurt her credibility, so she needs to be open about it. Here's the notes, here's what I thought happened then, here's what I now remember happening. I'm looking for witnesses and people that were there that can corroborate the story. The political timing and lack of credibility of Ford and Ramirez are disturbing. Your accusations that I'm "looking for reasons for this to be false" are disturbing. I don't permit plain smears to sway judicial nominees unless there's some substance, corroborating evidence, stuff like that to be present. You're plainly saying that the lack of evidence and the shifting stories of accusers should not affect my perspective on the matter. That's injustice and I suspect you know it. Reputations are at stake here.
This is the Senate, not the court. Verifying evidence and holding criminal trials isn't what they do. If you want a creditable report on the facts of the case, you want the executive branch to have the FBI go, find those facts and submit a report to the Senate Judiciary Committee. That is the closest we will get in this process.
On September 27 2018 02:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
People talk about investigating it, but what is there to find except some very hazy 35 year old memories? It's such a long time ago. The guy is probably a scumbag but what else will investigating add to that?
And, devils advocating a bit: Meanwhile the sitting president is a self-admitted pussy grabber with probably way more recent 'missteps'. If he's still allowed to be president then why would Kavanaugh be hindered by this stuff from his teenage years?
We don't need a finding, but they could interview people and find some basic facts about the stories. Did she tell the therapist about Kavanaugh in 2012? Did the party take place? Is there anyone else willing to support the claims about parties and date rape drugs or Kavanaugh exposing himself at a party? They can find out more than we current know.
|
The idea that the only person with anything to lose here is Kavanaugh is pretty messed up. Women who come forward with allegations, even true ones, can be harassed for a long time afterward, just by rocking the boat. Therefore, the idea that these women are speaking up only because they found a politically convenient opportunity is equally laughable. It belittles the experience that women have gone through, and it likewise belittles the wager they themselves make by coming forward.
Add on top that Kavanaugh is far from some innocent victim here. Republicans are trying to anoint him to the highest court in the land. The fact that the entire Republican leadership are trying to go through with this with so little scrutiny into their candidate is depressing. This isn't some retail job where any warm body will do.
|
On September 27 2018 01:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 01:51 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 01:46 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 01:39 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 01:37 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 01:25 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2018 01:18 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 00:58 JimmiC wrote: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. 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? Yes I am really suggesting that you used a false equivalent when you stated that since K showed his Calendar she should show her therapy notes. Here I will make you a deal. I will post a picture of my elbow and you post a picture of your wang? Fair we both posted something, or are they not equivalent. I would be fine with having the therapist confirm if Ford was comfortable with that. Or releasing part of the notes that were applicable, but than since your mind is already made up why would that matter? You would call it false with out all, and than as I mentioned and you avoided, even if you saw the notes your mind wouldn't be changed. You are just asking for things you think she is not willing to give up, to try to confirm what it is that you already believed. We are at 3 now, is this enough does it need to hit 5 or 10? I could care less if this guy fit my political leanings, if he drugged and ran trains on women, he is a bad person and not fit for the position. Releasing the part of the notes that were applicable is fine. I'm a little puzzled that you think I would not be satisfied with that, considering that I brought it up in reference to corroborating her 6-year claims with evidence. But whatever. It takes more than one person agreeing with at least one story. Dr Ford did not say she was aware of a secretive gang squad at parties. Swetnick doesn't have witness corroboration at this moment (you know, the whole claims made the day before a hearing thing that's the new normal). Swetnick brings up her allegations that there are dozens of other victims of this gang rape scheme that never came up in 6 previous FBI background checks that also didn't come up from the time he was nominated by Trump to the day before the twice rescheduled hearing. If he's really targeting young women in high school with drugs and alcohol and enabling a train of men to gang-rape them, let's hear corroboration. Many people have explained why this would not come up in standard background checks. So if Ford releases those notes and it comes out that she did make this accusation 6 years ago you would agree that he should not be the nest SCOTUS? She should do it to clarify conflicting reports at who was present. She told her therapist four boys were present, not two as she now claims. She claims she was in her late teens, not 15 as she now claims. The big question is if she's willing to accuse Kavanaugh in sworn testimony under penalty of perjury. We'll see if she can clarify these details. This is my point, she should not release her extremely personal notes because they won't change anyone's mind. You can dance around it all you want, but those notes being in or out are not a silver bullet for either side. Also, your really thinking it is false because she said late teens and it was 15, and you want consider that mid teens? The problem is you are looking for reasons for this to be false, not looking to see what really happened. The other side is also guilty of looking for it to be true. What would be lovely is if everyone took a breath and looked into all of this to see what is true or at least most likely. It is scary to me that even something as universal as sexual assault can be so politicized. The therapist notes do nothing but hurt her credibility, so she needs to be open about it. Here's the notes, here's what I thought happened then, here's what I now remember happening. I'm looking for witnesses and people that were there that can corroborate the story. The political timing and lack of credibility of Ford and Ramirez are disturbing. Your accusations that I'm "looking for reasons for this to be false" are disturbing. I don't permit plain smears to sway judicial nominees unless there's some substance, corroborating evidence, stuff like that to be present. You're plainly saying that the lack of evidence and the shifting stories of accusers should not affect my perspective on the matter. That's injustice and I suspect you know it. Reputations are at stake here. Show nested quote +On September 27 2018 01:48 On_Slaught wrote:On September 27 2018 01:40 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 01:30 iamthedave wrote:On September 27 2018 01:03 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2018 00:41 iamthedave wrote:On September 27 2018 00:06 Danglars wrote:Senate Judiciary staff are being reported to say they've asked Ramirez, through her lawyers, to provide a statement or any corroborating evidence to the committee five times now. Every time she's declined. What's interesting is that red-state Democratic Senators have continued to be very quiet on the allegations. Manchin is out just hoping for a "fair, open and civil hearing" and that the allegations haven't made him any less likely to vote against Kavanaugh than he was two weeks ago. Heitkamp declined to discuss the allegations. Donnelly hasn't talked to the press about it, but his chief of staff noted that Kavanaugh has support within the state. ( Politico) It's already a rallying cry for conservatives who say the delay tactics and uncorroborated smears make the proceedings a big joke. This could be a deciding issue for the vulnerable seats in the Senate. 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. 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? No, the women have had plenty of time to make statements and have refused to multiple times to delay proceedings. What part of the multiple delays up to this point to accommodate everything do you not understand? If they wanted to slam this through, the original vote two weeks ago or the vote last week would've occurred. You're simply lying and misrepresenting the truth. Kavanaugh was nominated around two months ago. These accusations were kept hidden until weeks ago. The latest was made a day before a hearing. Its disengenuous to say they were all being kept hidden. Ramirez might have thought it wasn't a big enough deal to bring up. Yet when she heard Ford she decided she should add her incident. Swetnick, like was said last page, might have been prompted to speak up only after Kavanaugh's lie filled Fox Interview despite the danger to her career this poses. It isnt unreasonable to say the most recent 2 only came out late because Ford came out late. I agree Ford should have come our sooner but it is what it is. You're saying reasons why you think they were and should've been hidden. A gang rape ring of college frat boys does not trigger release based on an interview. You're basically saying society is tolerant of gang rape, so it's only natural that Swetnick waited until now. It doesn't add up and your stories are frankly unbelievable. The only believable part is Ford being misled by Feinstein, her rep, and her lawyer that her confidentiality might be respected while also stopping Kavanaugh's nomination.
See ticklishmusics post. The fact they might have been used in such a way to maximize their political impact does not make them untrue. If what you're saying is true then all it means is that Republicans lost this political battle. The timing doesn't change the fact they need to do the right thing by holding off the vote while these are investigated thoroughly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
