Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[Goalpost]

Well it sounds like she is not going to testify Monday now.

[Belsnickel]

(09-18-2018, 10:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Damn, Matt.  I've never seen you lose it like this.  While I get your point I don't wholly disagree with bfine's assertion that the tweet you shared isn't exactly a fair statement.  That being said, it's certainly not worth getting upset over.

I admit to there being other factors affecting my mood (see my thread in Klotsch). That being said, the constant strawman arguments just irk me to no end.

[Belsnickel]

(09-18-2018, 09:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That’s fine and I get the Dems giving some payback but please let’s not pretend it’s something else.

Why do you say it isn't something else? If he has lied before the committee, that is an issue.

[GMDino]

(09-18-2018, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Please do try and stay on the thread topic.

[Vlad]

[GMDino]

[GMDino]

(09-18-2018, 07:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Saw something on Twitter that I thought was pretty appropriate to all of this. If Kavanaugh is "punished" by not being confirmed to the SCOTUS due to a sexual misconduct allegation, that is the same "punishment" that Merrick Garland faced for merely being appointed by a Democrat.

(09-18-2018, 07:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Never knew Garland was accused of sexual misconduct for simply being appointed by a Democrat; but Kavs very well be simply for being nominated by a Republican.

Wow is that an inane attempt to spin the truth to support your boys.

It is a complete (probably deliberate) misinterpretation of Matt's post.

That you and your usual suspects are trying to defend what you wrote above is very telling.

Hell, Matt doesn't always agree with me but at least I don't try to fabricate what he said just to make a political point.

Garland and Kavanaugh may end up with the exact same result from their nomination: Not getting approved.  One is under scrutiny because he probably wasn't vetted well enough (while the Republican controlled Senate attempts to force his nomination through it all) and the other had the misfortune of being nominated by a Democrat when Republicans controlled the Senate and would not even CONSIDER his nomination.  

Period.  

All the GOP spin in the world won't take the stink off that or off your boys.

And I'll preemptively say No, two wrongs do not make a right.  But the first wrong had no basis in anything other than partisan politics.  Democrats didn't make Kavanaugh lie under oath (twice) and they did write the letter accusing him of trying to sexually assault someone in HS...whether the latter is true or not.

[*bfine32*]

(09-18-2018, 10:50 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Well it sounds like she is not going to testify Monday now.

It appears she wants the FBI to investigate before she is "rushed" to testify about allegations she made to political officials months ago. The Dems will paint this as the GOP "rushing" things while totally dismissing the fact that Fienstien sat on this for months.

I will say I thought what the GOP did with Garland was one of the worst partisan moves I've seen, but this out does it. If what this woman is claiming is true then the Dems are using this as a political tool. They care absolutely nothing about this woman.

Fred's assertion that it doesn't matter when a suspected sexual predator's actions are made public aside; I see no way that anyone can think what the Dems are doing is noble. If it's false, it's bad; if it's true, it's worse.

[*bfine32*]

(09-18-2018, 11:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wow is that an inane attempt to spin the truth to support your boys.

It is a complete (probably deliberate) misinterpretation of Matt's post.

That you and your usual suspects are trying to defend what you wrote above is very telling.

Hell, Matt doesn't always agree with me but at least I don't try to fabricate what he said just to make a political point.

Garland and Kavanaugh may end up with the exact same result from their nomination: Not getting approved.  One is under scrutiny because he probably wasn't vetted well enough (while the Republican controlled Senate attempts to force his nomination through it all) and the other had the misfortune of being nominated by a Democrat when Republicans controlled the Senate and would not even CONSIDER his nomination.  

Period.  

All the GOP spin in the world won't take the stink off that or off your boys.

And I'll preemptively say No, two wrongs do not make a right.  But the first wrong had no basis in anything other than partisan politics.  Democrats didn't make Kavanaugh lie under oath (twice) and they did write the letter accusing him of trying to sexually assault someone in HS...whether the latter is true or not.

But you assert someone shouldn't call out that silly tweet for the biased, uninformed garbage it is.

I fabricated nothing.

[*bfine32*]

(09-18-2018, 10:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I admit to there being other factors affecting my mood (see my thread in Klotsch). That being said, the constant strawman arguments just irk me to no end.

Hang in there and understand we just debate here with often a too sharpened edge.

That being said, there was no strawman

[ballsofsteel]

Wow, Kavanagh came up with those 65 women writing letters about what a great guy he is and sending them to the committee mighty fast.
It was like he already had all them ready to go ahead of time, just in case he needed them

This is a life time appointment to one of the biggest jobs in this country. Why not let the FBI investigate it and see what happened if anything did. What is the hurry? Why are the Repubs hell bent on rushing this through?

Did Orin Hatch ever find his glasses?

[Belsnickel]

(09-19-2018, 12:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Hang in there and understand we just debate here with often a too sharpened edge.

That being said, there was no strawman

Yes there was.

[6andcounting]

I demand the FBI investigate the dog shit that showed up in my front yard some number of weeks ago. That's how it works, right?

[fredtoast]

(09-18-2018, 06:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: She doesn't know where the party was

She doesn't know how she got there

She doesn't know how she got home

She was drinking

This are all legitimate points to bring up.  I just was not aware of them.  I have not studied all the facts that closely.

[fredtoast]

(09-19-2018, 12:00 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Fred's assertion that it doesn't matter when a suspected sexual predator's actions are made public aside; I see no way that anyone can think what the Dems are doing is noble. If it's false, it's bad; if it's true, it's worse.

It is not noble, but you have admitted that both sides do it.

So hate the system instead of the players.

[GMDino]

Had Ford passed that letter to the GOP would it have been brought up?  Would the FBI have investigated?

The answer is no and yes.

Instead it gets brought up, the GOP complains abut it and no one wants the FBI to investigate because they already did such a great job vetting him. 

I will apologize to the men who think the alleged victim should be forced to testify next week after decades of not talking about the event.  It's almost as if it was traumatic for her and the idea of having a group of men grilling her (over half of which already think what she says is total BS) isn't an easy decision.

You folks on the right are completely dismissive because you want your boy on the SC.  I'd expect you to at least own that, but I've learned most around here won't own their mistakes and biases but rather choose to pretend they are "fair".  They will type in a throwaway line about a subject so they can come back and say "I said I was for/against it" while 98% of their posts are straight partisan.

I'm sorry you can't ram through this appointment because he has lied under oath (twice) and now stand accused of something from a long time ago.  You'll still get your way, but first the GOP has to figure out a way to gloss over another of their candidates with baggage they are willing to completely overlook because of the ® next to his name.   (And please spare me the platitudes of judges be apolitical...if you believed that you would have had a stronger response to Garland not even getting a meeting, let a lone a hearing.)

[GMDino]

[fredtoast]

(09-18-2018, 10:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: All of these things are exactly what Fred would bring up in court.  You missed the biggest one though, that the memories were thirty years old before she revealed them to anyone.  While this doesn't disqualify her recollection any person involved in this profession would eat that single fact raw.  Witness and victim testimony is often inconsistent and very often changes over time.  If Fred was being honest he'd admit that a common defense attorney tactic is to delay trial so witness and victim recollections of the attack can degrade over time.  Definitive the night of becomes I'm not sure ten months later, much less thirty years.  Again none of these factors means she's not telling the truth, but every one of them makes the possibility that her story isn't wholly based in fact a more likely possibility.

I was hoping Fred would be honest for a change when I asked him that question.  He clearly dodged is as he doesn't want to be associated with the inevitable GOP response to this allegation, nor does he want to be portrayed as unsympathetic to a alleged victim of sexual assault.  We get it, Fed, but going after the very factors that bfine and I brought up would be your job and if you didn't do exactly that you'd be monstrously incompetent at best.  Being a defense attorney is a difficult job, you have to defend some of the worst people on Earth to the best of your ability.  It's a shame Fred couldn't share some actual insight with us in this case.

The points Bfine brought up were legit.  I just was not aware of them.

Generally people who are the victim of a violent crime like sexual assault do not forget who did it no matter how much time passes.  Other details may become foggy, but not that one.

[GMDino]

[Benton]

(09-19-2018, 12:00 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I will say I thought what the GOP did with Garland was one of the worst partisan moves I've seen, but this out does it. If what this woman is claiming is true then the Dems are using this as a political tool. They care absolutely nothing about this woman.

Lying about other people is nothing new. And it's pretty nonpartisan. Lying gfor and against candidates happens.

Not doing your job because it involves someone of the other political party is completely partisan.