|
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 29 2018 13:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm sure Clarence Thomas' feelings are really hurt by tweets asking him to resign with no compulsion while holding one of the (right now 8) most powerful judicial positions in the United States for over two decades now. What a ruined life!
It just sounds like he's been busy drinking the Trump kool-aid, watching Fox News for the past 2 years, then decided he'd pop in here to drop the knowledge bomb on us unsuspecting sheeple. Always be on the attack, always project your failings onto the people who call you out on them, and never admit them. I'd be insulted if it wasn't just sad.
|
Things change so fast. Earlier we thought the investigation would be limited to just Ford. However shortly after that McConnells office said the FBI is open to investigate ANY credible accusations they get. Also, he will wait until a final report is in before calling a vote. McConnell is a scorched earth politician. The fact he is being this flexible makes me think he is ready and willing to cut ties with Kavanaugh if any problem comes up.
Source: CNN reporter
|
On September 29 2018 13:19 On_Slaught wrote:I'm seeing rumblings online that women other than Ford (maybe Ramirez/Swetnick, maybe someone else) have reported to the FBI about some misconduct from Kavanaugh. The FBI has scheduled an interview with one as soon as tonight! LA Times reporting that the investigation will go beyond just Ford as a result of these new claims. Them getting leads beyond Ford and investigating those would be a big deal. If this is true then it will be easy for Swetnick to force the FBI to look into her story by filing a report. Source: Original article: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-congress-kavanaugh-vote-20180928-story.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true
"one of two" basically confirms it's Ramirez or Swetnick. The latter's claim is ridiculous, but she did sign some paperwork, Ramirez was more believable (not that either are very credible) but as far as I know hasn't submitted any formal requests. But it's one of them. I look forward to Avanatti whining that his client didn't get enough time to "prove" her story when the report comes back. you know the FBI is all in kn this though. They want this out of their hands as soon as possible.
|
On September 29 2018 13:56 Introvert wrote:"one of two" basically confirms it's Ramirez or Swetnick. The latter's claim is ridiculous, but she did sign some paperwork, Ramirez was more believable (not that either are very credible) but as far as I know hasn't submitted any formal requests. But it's one of them. I look forward to Avanatti whining that his client didn't get enough time to "prove" her story when the report comes back. you know the FBI is all in kn this though. They want this out of their hands as soon as possible.
If they are starting as soon as tonight, then there is plenty of time to determine if Ramirez's and/or Swetnick's claims are credible and worthy of further investigation.
|
I loved how Kavanaugh squirmed and evaded the question about asking for an FBI investigation. But now they fucked him over and are doing exactly that. He bumbled and sweated when the Dems grilled him on it. He couldn't answer yes or no. It was hilarious. And now the FBI will ask every single classmate about his drinking and find his buddy Mark Judge. The dude is fucked. Mark Judge is the key and what an amazing citizen Mark Judge is for a legal defense.
You can't make this shit up. I applaud our Prez Trump for the amount of light he has shed on the idiocy of some members of his party.
|
On September 29 2018 14:14 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 13:56 Introvert wrote:"one of two" basically confirms it's Ramirez or Swetnick. The latter's claim is ridiculous, but she did sign some paperwork, Ramirez was more believable (not that either are very credible) but as far as I know hasn't submitted any formal requests. But it's one of them. I look forward to Avanatti whining that his client didn't get enough time to "prove" her story when the report comes back. you know the FBI is all in kn this though. They want this out of their hands as soon as possible. If they are starting as soon as tonight, then there is plenty of time to determine if Ramirez's and/or Swetnick's claims are credible and worthy of further investigation.
I will just emphasize, for all our sakes, that whatever Avanatti puts out ought to be met with extreme skepticism, considering that
A) the affidavit, so far as I can tell, doesn't actually ever say she saw him commit a crime,
B) it's Michael Avanantti
C) They refused to provide evidence to the committee when asked.
D) they refused to provide the story/evidence to the media, either.
Just things to chew on.
|
United States44194 Posts
Wasn't the last Avanatti story the one where everything his client claimed turned out to be true, despite vehement denials by Trump that continued after documents showing the truth of it were released?
|
On September 29 2018 14:41 KwarK wrote:
Wasn't the last Avanatti story the one where everything his client claimed turned out to be true, despite vehement denials by Trump that continued after documents showing the truth of it were released?
He's trying to use this for his possible presidential ambitions. All it has to do is be plausible enough to Democratic primary voters. That's his audience. and if you haven't noticed, they'll believe anything right now. if this is real then, like with Feinstein, someone has once again handled this is the worst possible way if we are looking for truth. if there were rape parties that she continued to attend (more than 10), I look forward to hundreds of witnesses with proof. Avanatti claimed he could get "up to two" or some such wording.
I won't say anymore because we don't know any more, but choosing Avanatti out of every lawyer in America gives a big fat minus to your staring value for credibility.
|
I can't help but wonder, if Dr. Ford had lost her shit on the stand like Brett did, if she called out the GOP senators for the way they've treated women for decades, if she accused them of only pushing him so hard because they think he'll overturn Roe v Wade, if people would have considered her testimony credible.
It seems weird to me that Brett's getting such a positive response for what amounts to being unable to maintain his composure under pressure. Or that partisan ranting in a job interview somehow qualifies him for a position where he can put his obvious partisan leanings to work, despite the job explicitly calling for non-partisan behaviour.
|
Not entirely sure what we're hoping for here anyway. Yeah it's good that there's an actual investigation now, even if limited in scope: but here's the thing, it'll change absolutely nothing. Especially not for people like Nettles. If Kavanaugh gets caught with his pants down, it'll be a conspiracy, a deep state false flag, the investigators being democratic stooges, etc - you literally cannot win against a Trumpet. We've seen this over and over again. The Trump investigation is still being called fake news, witch hunt etc despite constantly people provable being guilty of shit, already having produced convictions too.
It is mindboggling how far "republicans" are gone. Like, if you make the tea party look reasonable, you should get yourself checked. For conservatives, every conspiracy goes - regardless of how retarded it is. And not just nobodies like Nettles etc, but literally a possible future surpreme court judge instantly jumps to conspiracies.
It's hard to win an argument if the counter is "yeah but that's what they want you to think".
|
On September 29 2018 18:54 m4ini wrote:
Not entirely sure what we're hoping for here anyway. Yeah it's good that there's an actual investigation now, even if limited in scope: but here's the thing, it'll change absolutely nothing. Especially not for people like Nettles. If Kavanaugh gets caught with his pants down, it'll be a conspiracy, a deep state false flag, the investigators being democratic stooges, etc - you literally cannot win against a Trumpet. We've seen this over and over again. The Trump investigation is still being called fake news, witch hunt etc despite constantly people provable being guilty of shit, already having produced convictions too.
It is mindboggling how far "republicans" are gone. Like, if you make the tea party look reasonable, you should get yourself checked. For conservatives, every conspiracy goes - regardless of how retarded it is. And not just nobodies like Nettles etc, but literally a possible future surpreme court judge instantly jumps to conspiracies.
It's hard to win an argument if the counter is "yeah but that's what they want you to think". Its not about convincing Trump supporters, because as you said thats nigh impossible, its about forcing the Senate Republicans to drop his nomination.
(assuming ofcourse that he isn't completely cleared by the investigation, and even then I consider his conduct to be unworthy of a SC judge)
|
On September 29 2018 14:14 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 13:56 Introvert wrote:"one of two" basically confirms it's Ramirez or Swetnick. The latter's claim is ridiculous, but she did sign some paperwork, Ramirez was more believable (not that either are very credible) but as far as I know hasn't submitted any formal requests. But it's one of them. I look forward to Avanatti whining that his client didn't get enough time to "prove" her story when the report comes back. you know the FBI is all in kn this though. They want this out of their hands as soon as possible. If they are starting as soon as tonight, then there is plenty of time to determine if Ramirez's and/or Swetnick's claims are credible and worthy of further investigation.
I hope you're right about there being plenty of time... the time limit was set at one week, right? I have no idea how long it could/ should/ would take for what's considered to be a "thorough" investigation, but once the time constraint was announced, I was immediately worried that there would probably be stalling and screwing around by the Republicans for seven days, just so they could start repeating the key mantra that they had an FBI investigation, didn't find enough, and moved on, obviously not mentioning the crucial detail of the time restriction.
|
On September 29 2018 18:38 iamthedave wrote:
I can't help but wonder, if Dr. Ford had lost her shit on the stand like Brett did, if she called out the GOP senators for the way they've treated women for decades, if she accused them of only pushing him so hard because they think he'll overturn Roe v Wade, if people would have considered her testimony credible.
It seems weird to me that Brett's getting such a positive response for what amounts to being unable to maintain his composure under pressure. Or that partisan ranting in a job interview somehow qualifies him for a position where he can put his obvious partisan leanings to work, despite the job explicitly calling for non-partisan behaviour.
Women are held at an unbelievably different standard than men when it comes to behaviour. They have to be nice and composed at all time, don’t appear rude or aggressive and especially not upset or they are gone.
I think most people don’t even realize it.
|
On September 29 2018 20:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 18:38 iamthedave wrote:
I can't help but wonder, if Dr. Ford had lost her shit on the stand like Brett did, if she called out the GOP senators for the way they've treated women for decades, if she accused them of only pushing him so hard because they think he'll overturn Roe v Wade, if people would have considered her testimony credible.
It seems weird to me that Brett's getting such a positive response for what amounts to being unable to maintain his composure under pressure. Or that partisan ranting in a job interview somehow qualifies him for a position where he can put his obvious partisan leanings to work, despite the job explicitly calling for non-partisan behaviour. Women are held at an unbelievably different standard than men when it comes to behaviour. They have to be nice and composed at all time, don’t appear rude or aggressive and especially not upset or they are gone. I think most people don’t even realize it.
Nah, it's pretty obvious. If a woman acts angry, she is "hysterical" or "has lost it". If a man acts angry, he probably has a good reason.
|
On September 29 2018 20:55 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 20:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 29 2018 18:38 iamthedave wrote:
I can't help but wonder, if Dr. Ford had lost her shit on the stand like Brett did, if she called out the GOP senators for the way they've treated women for decades, if she accused them of only pushing him so hard because they think he'll overturn Roe v Wade, if people would have considered her testimony credible.
It seems weird to me that Brett's getting such a positive response for what amounts to being unable to maintain his composure under pressure. Or that partisan ranting in a job interview somehow qualifies him for a position where he can put his obvious partisan leanings to work, despite the job explicitly calling for non-partisan behaviour. Women are held at an unbelievably different standard than men when it comes to behaviour. They have to be nice and composed at all time, don’t appear rude or aggressive and especially not upset or they are gone. I think most people don’t even realize it. Nah, it's pretty obvious. If a woman acts angry, she is "hysterical" or "has lost it". If a man acts angry, he probably has a good reason.
And if a man cries he's seen as a wimp and a fag. It's pretty clear that there are different standards for men and women when it comes to behaviour but that doesn't mean women have it harder.
|
On September 29 2018 21:38 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 20:55 Simberto wrote:On September 29 2018 20:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 29 2018 18:38 iamthedave wrote:
I can't help but wonder, if Dr. Ford had lost her shit on the stand like Brett did, if she called out the GOP senators for the way they've treated women for decades, if she accused them of only pushing him so hard because they think he'll overturn Roe v Wade, if people would have considered her testimony credible.
It seems weird to me that Brett's getting such a positive response for what amounts to being unable to maintain his composure under pressure. Or that partisan ranting in a job interview somehow qualifies him for a position where he can put his obvious partisan leanings to work, despite the job explicitly calling for non-partisan behaviour. Women are held at an unbelievably different standard than men when it comes to behaviour. They have to be nice and composed at all time, don’t appear rude or aggressive and especially not upset or they are gone. I think most people don’t even realize it. Nah, it's pretty obvious. If a woman acts angry, she is "hysterical" or "has lost it". If a man acts angry, he probably has a good reason. And if a man cries he's seen as a wimp and a fag. It's pretty clear that there are different standards for men and women when it comes to behaviour but that doesn't mean women have it harder.
Kavanaugh cried during the hearing and I've not read about him being a fag anywhere.
|
On September 29 2018 14:35 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 14:14 On_Slaught wrote:On September 29 2018 13:56 Introvert wrote:"one of two" basically confirms it's Ramirez or Swetnick. The latter's claim is ridiculous, but she did sign some paperwork, Ramirez was more believable (not that either are very credible) but as far as I know hasn't submitted any formal requests. But it's one of them. I look forward to Avanatti whining that his client didn't get enough time to "prove" her story when the report comes back. you know the FBI is all in kn this though. They want this out of their hands as soon as possible. If they are starting as soon as tonight, then there is plenty of time to determine if Ramirez's and/or Swetnick's claims are credible and worthy of further investigation. I will just emphasize, for all our sakes, that whatever Avanatti puts out ought to be met with extreme skepticism, considering that A) the affidavit, so far as I can tell, doesn't actually ever say she saw him commit a crime, B) it's Michael AvananttiC) They refused to provide evidence to the committee when asked. D) they refused to provide the story/evidence to the media, either. Just things to chew on.
I love how people on the right bash Avenatti for who he chooses to represent, as if that somehow has an impact on his credibility. If anything "It's Michael Avenatti" means we should be more likely to believe him since, you know, he's been right about all the other shit. It's like when people talk about the Steele dossier.
"It/He is bullshit!"
"But.... a lot of what it/he said has turned out to be true...."
"NO CREDIBILITY. DODGE DOSSIER/CREEPY PORN LAWYER"
While we're on the topic of right-wing denial, how have these assholes reconciled the fact that every accuser and some of the key witnesses have been all about the FBI investigation while Kavanaugh and his enablers have been terrified of it? You don't offer to talk to the FBI or to the Senate and risk jail time unless you're real fuckin' sure you're telling the truth. And you don't do everything in your power to avoid the FBI and Senate if you're innocent. They all seem to rant about political hit jobs and how these allegations were timed to hurt Kav, but they ignore the fact that the allegations are very likely true based on the publicly available evidence. It's the same thing with Trump and Russia. There is more than enough info in the public sphere to be absolutely convinced that a conspiracy took place, but instead Republicans are too busy hammering everything but the facts.
|
|
|
On September 29 2018 23:13 plasmidghost wrote:
I know next to nothing about Mark Judge. What are the chances he turns on Kavanaugh when the FBI questions him? It has to be next to zero, right? Plus, I can imagine him using the defense of "I do not recall" for nearly everything so he doesn't incriminate himself, provided the allegations are true
I would imagine "I dont recall' is very likely. But its hard to find successful people who are willing to lie to the police (or equivalent) on your behalf and risk destroying their life to hide your crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
