Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 10:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So basically what you are saying is that there is not always a presumption of innocence.  basicvally there is only a presumption when the facts line up with a Republican candidate noiminated for the Supreme court.


Situational moral are not real morals at all.

My presumption of innocence is unpartisan regardless how many times you assert it is.

[jj22]

(10-05-2018, 11:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think you're ignoring that EVERYONE that Ford identified at the gathering has been investigated and none have any idea what she's talking about. No matter how many times you type they were not interviewed does not change that fact.

Matter of fact there are current reports that the lawyer of Leland Ingham Keyser is asserting her client was "urged' to rethink her memory.

Fake news. None of Fords corroborating witnesses were interviewed by the FBI. Trump wouldn't approve it. As the WH admits, and Trump supporters clearly ignore.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/dozens-potential-sources-information-have-not-been-contacted-fbi-kavanaugh-n916146

https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/fbi-report-interview-kavanaugh-classmates.html

You got to keep it to common sense with me Bfine. I'm not that easily conned and don't play the fool for politics like some people are willing to do.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 11:43 AM)jj22 Wrote: Fake news. None of Fords corroborating witnesses were interviewed by the FBI. Trump wouldn't approve it. As the WH admits, and Trump supporters clearly ignore.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/dozens-potential-sources-information-have-not-been-contacted-fbi-kavanaugh-n916146

https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/fbi-report-interview-kavanaugh-classmates.html

You got to keep it to common sense with me Bfine. I'm not that easily conned and don't play the fool for politics like some people are willing to do.

Provide me with a name of someone that MS Ford identified as being at the gathering where she claimed she was sexually assaulted. If you cannot then you might be more easily fooled than you think.  

[fredtoast]

(10-05-2018, 11:34 AM)bfine32 Wrote: No I would not fire my babysitter for this. 

Everyone else on the planet would.

Why do you automatically label the child a liar and believe the babysitter?

[jj22]

(10-05-2018, 11:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Provide me with a name of someone that MS Ford identified as being at the gathering where she claimed she was sexually assaulted. If you cannot then you might be more easily fooled than you think.  

I did you one better and sent you links with the people she mentioned and the FBI wasn't able to interview. How much more do you want from me? I can copy and paste the names mentioned (or her testimony to verify those were really mentioned, but something tells me you'll move the goalpost.

Either way the common sense point remains, the FBI won't find corroborating evidence if corroborating witnesses weren't interviewed. But I'm sure you know that. Just not sure why you are ignoring Trump, the WH, the Republican Senate who have all admitted how limited the investigation was. What is it you are gaining from this denial?

[fredtoast]

(10-05-2018, 11:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Matter of fact there are current reports that the lawyer of Leland Ingham Keyser is asserting her client was "urged' to rethink her memory.

In a statement to [i]The Washington Post [/i]via her lawyer, Keyser confirmed that she and Ford are longtime friends. Furthermore, she stipulated that she believed Ford’s allegation even though she didn’t personally remember the party in question.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 11:48 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Everyone else on the planet would.

Why do you automatically label the child a liar and believe the babysitter?

Now you have gone "Full Fred"; now you speak for everyone else in the whole planet. 

I did not label the child a liar; however, you freely assumed the guilt of the babysitter with nothing more than an accusation.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 11:55 AM)fredtoast Wrote: In a statement to [i]The Washington Post [/i]via her lawyer, Keyser confirmed that she and Ford are longtime friends. Furthermore, she stipulated that she believed Ford’s allegation even though she didn’t personally remember the party in question.

Great work Fred. It does 0 to refute the post you quoted, but I assume you thought you had a point.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 11:51 AM)jj22 Wrote: I did you one better and sent you links with the people she mentioned and the FBI wasn't able to interview. How much more do you want from me? I can copy and paste the names mentioned (or her testimony to verify those were really mentioned, but something tells me you'll move the goalpost.

Either way the common sense point remains, the FBI won't find corroborating evidence if corroborating witnesses weren't interviewed. But I'm sure you know that. Just not sure why you are ignoring Trump, the WH, the Republican Senate who have all admitted how limited the investigation was. What is it you are gaining from this denial?

You were not asked to do me "one better". You were simply asked to share one name that was at the event in question that was not questioned. You have failed at this task. Your providing links does nothing more than prove you might be more easily fooled than you think.

[*michaelsean*]

So it goes for a vote tomorrow. One person from each party jumping to the other side.

[jj22]

(10-05-2018, 12:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You were not asked to do me "one better". You were simply asked to share one name that was at the event in question that was not questioned. You have failed at this task. Your providing links does nothing more than prove you might be more easily fooled than you think.

Which is better guys? A list of 10 people with a link to prove it. Or me naming one. Just for Bfine I am going to go to my list and name a name since that seems to be what's preferred here. Seems silly to me, but anything outside of common sense seems silly to me.

Here Bfine. Just for you.

Russel Ford. He wasn't at the event, however he was an important witness to her claims. If you want specifics to the event then I'll mention Kav himself.

Also just because I'll add her therapist. Whom she told of her assault prior to Kav even being nominated.

All of which is discussed in the links I provided.

It's a sad state of affairs for Trump supporters.

[jj22]

Just realized Bfine may not be able to click on a link and see for himself, so my apologies if that is the case. Happy to have provided you with a name.

[GMDino]

(10-05-2018, 11:48 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Everyone else on the planet would.

Why do you automatically label the child a liar and believe the babysitter?

I wouldn't "fire" them, but they wouldn't watch my kids until there was an investigation.

Even if the alleged event was a "long time ago". 

[jj22]

(10-05-2018, 12:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: I wouldn't "fire" them, but they wouldn't watch my kids until there was an investigation.

Even if the alleged event was a "long time ago". 

Hopefully you will allow them to interview the kid, and not limit the investigation. Unless of course, you think the kid is lying.... #commonsensepolitics

[fredtoast]

(10-05-2018, 11:59 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I did not label the child a liar; however, you freely assumed the guilt of the babysitter with nothing more than an accusation.

I did not assume her guilt.  I just refused to presume her innocent in order to protect my child.

You are right.  Not everyone would do that.  Just parents who care about their child getting sexually assaulted.

[jj22]

For the record, I think it's important to note it really doesn't matter if Kav gets on the court. It's not a net gain for Republicans (which is why I don't buy this is all the Dems desperation), Justice Roberts is the swing vote and will remain the swing vote (as you saw with Obamacare). Kav getting in changes nothing really. So the argument that Dems are going all in doesn't make sense. If it was a Dem who retired or passed away, and Republicans were picking the replacement, then I'd buy it more. Or if it was the Gorsuch nomination after what Republicans did to Garland, I'd believe it. But they never pulled these cards on Gorsuch who they had a right to (not a false accusation if that's what Trump supporters believe they did or are behind, that's wrong regardless) because of the stolen seat. So the argument falls on deaf ears with me because Kav getting in changes nothing.

[Bengalzona]

(10-05-2018, 12:45 PM)jj22 Wrote: For the record, I think it's important to note it really doesn't matter if Kav gets on the court. It's not a net gain for Republicans (which is why I don't buy this is all the Dems desperation), Justice Roberts is the swing vote and will remain the swing vote (as you saw with Obamacare). Kav getting in changes nothing really. So the argument that Dems are going all in doesn't make sense. If it was a Dem who retired or passed away, then I'd buy it more. Or if it was the Gorsuch nomination after what Republicans did to Garland, I'd believe it. But they never pulled these cards on Gorsuch who they had a right to because of the stolen seat. So the argument falls on deaf ears with me because Kav getting in changes nothing.

Except for those who are sincere in their concerns about SCOTUS becoming a collection of alleged sexual abusers and hot-headed partisan shrills.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 12:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I did not assume her guilt.  I just refused to presume her innocent in order to protect my child.

You are right.  Not everyone would do that.  Just parents who care about their child getting sexually assaulted.

STFU

[jj22]

(10-05-2018, 12:48 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Except for those who are sincere in their concerns about SCOTUS becoming a collection of alleged sexual abusers and hot-headed partisan shrills.

True, but Justice Scalia was hyper partisan. He didn't let it show in his hearing like Kav (mistakenly) did, but he was always on Fox News and taking shots at Dems etc. So they are trying to replace a hard right justice with another hard right justice. Which just cancels it out Kav just blew his top (while sober, can you imagine him drunk!) and exposed the truth about his far right conspiracy beliefs.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-05-2018, 12:45 PM)jj22 Wrote: For the record, I think it's important to note it really doesn't matter if Kav gets on the court. It's not a net gain for Republicans (which is why I don't buy this is all the Dems desperation), Justice Roberts is the swing vote and will remain the swing vote (as you saw with Obamacare). Kav getting in changes nothing really. So the argument that Dems are going all in doesn't make sense. If it was a Dem who retired or passed away, and Republicans were picking the replacement, then I'd buy it more. Or if it was the Gorsuch nomination after what Republicans did to Garland, I'd believe it. But they never pulled these cards on Gorsuch who they had a right to (not a false accusation if that's what Trump supporters believe they did or are behind, that's wrong regardless) because of the stolen seat. So the argument falls on deaf ears with me because Kav getting in changes nothing.

Kennedy was the major swing vote.  This does hurt them.  Roberts was the swing in the healthcare vote.