Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[Belsnickel]

(10-26-2018, 08:50 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Looking like Avenatti's 15 minutes of fame are about exhausted.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-questions-raised-about-avenatti-claims-regarding-kavanaugh/ar-BBOUy0Z?ocid=spartandhp

Seems witnesses might have signed statements written by Avenatti, that they didn't fully read. Seems like the witnesses completely contradict Avenatti's sworn statements in NBC news interview.

I hope he fades into the aether. I'm so tired of him.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-26-2018, 09:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I hope he fades into the aether. I'm so tired of him.

Trying too hard to be one of those power lawyers that the cable shows run to for an expert opinion.  Problem is, even though they are celebrity lawyers now, they did something in their real job to propel them to the spotlight.  He's trying to create that.

[SunsetBengal]

(10-26-2018, 09:30 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Trying too hard to be one of those power lawyers that the cable shows run to for an expert opinion.  Problem is, even though they are celebrity lawyers now, they did something in their real job to propel them to the spotlight.  He's trying to create that.

I've got a feeling that this guy is going down, hard.  I've read that he's got large judgements against him to creditors, owes the IRS millions, and now this.  Grassley seems like he's on a mission to put this guy away.

[fredtoast]

(10-26-2018, 08:50 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Looking like Avenatti's 15 minutes of fame are about exhausted.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-questions-raised-about-avenatti-claims-regarding-kavanaugh/ar-BBOUy0Z?ocid=spartandhp

Seems witnesses might have signed statements written by Avenatti, that they didn't fully read.  Seems like the witnesses completely contradict Avenatti's sworn statements in NBC news interview.

Avanti seems sleazy, but you can never take the word of someone who signed a statement and then claim they never read it.  That is 100% BS.

This was not some standard boilerplate contract or agreement.  Is was the persons sworn statement.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-26-2018, 12:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Avanti seems sleazy, but you can never take the word of someone who signed a statement and then claim they never read it.  That is 100% BS.

This was not some standard boilerplate contract or agreement.  Is was the persons sworn statement.

Agreed there.  This was a big national story, and if you release a sworn statement without reading it, that's nuts.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-26-2018, 08:11 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If they are found to have made a false claim, the movement will be angry and speak against them. False accusations hurt the movement.

Not to mention what the false claims do for the accused.

If these claims are proven to be false maybe, just maybe they will raise the standard of guilt to a little higher than "I believe her".

[*bfine32*]

(10-26-2018, 03:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not to mention what the false claims do for the accused.

If these claims are proven to be false maybe, just maybe they will raise the standard of guilt to a little higher than "I believe her".

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/02/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-referred-fbi-doj-investigation/1863210002/

'I was angry and I sent it': Another Kavanaugh accuser referred to FBI after recanting


#Ibelieveher

[GMDino]

(11-05-2018, 08:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/02/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-referred-fbi-doj-investigation/1863210002/

'I was angry and I sent it': Another Kavanaugh accuser referred to FBI after recanting


#Ibelieveher

Nobody even knew who this was.  But hey if it makes you feel better about Ford's testimony good for you.

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2018, 12:29 AM)GMDino Wrote: Nobody even knew who this was.  But hey if it makes you feel better about Ford's testimony good for you.

Nah, it just makes me feel better because it supports my stance of I need a little more proof than because she said so to condemn anyone. 

#Ibelieveher

[Dill]

(11-05-2018, 08:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/02/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-referred-fbi-doj-investigation/1863210002/

'I was angry and I sent it': Another Kavanaugh accuser referred to FBI after recanting


#Ibelieveher

So the author of the letter is still unknown? The recanter is someone who piggybacked on it?

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2018, 01:33 AM)Dill Wrote: So the author of the letter is still unknown? The recanter is someone who piggybacked on it?

It appears as such. 

#Ibelieveher

[GMDino]

(11-06-2018, 01:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, it just makes me feel better because it supports my stance of I need a little more proof than because she said so to condemn anyone. 

#Ibelieveher

Which is why you never heard of this accuser until this happened....and still don't know who she is.  Because the system works just like that.

But you didn't want to see it because you liked the guy accused so you created a myth in your own mind that all women are simply "believed" by those investigating (not the extremes of the general public) and that's that.

Reality be damned.

Which is probably why you posted the link about an unknown accuser...to suggest that ALL the accusers were believed immediately and thus throw shade at Ford who was deemed legitimate enough to be given an opportunity to speak before the commission.

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2018, 09:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: Which is why you never heard of this accuser until this happened....and still don't know who she is.  Because the system works just like that.

But you didn't want to see it because you liked the guy accused so you created a myth in your own mind that all women are simply "believed" by those investigating (not the extremes of the general public) and that's that.

Reality be damned.

Which is probably why you posted the link about an unknown accuser...to suggest that ALL the accusers were believed immediately and thus throw shade at Ford who was deemed legitimate enough to be given an opportunity to speak before the commission.

No, it was to throw shade at those that require nothing more that "I believe her" as empirical proof to wreck a person's family and his/her reputation. Ifit doesn't pertain to you, great; but thou doth protest too much. 

[GMDino]

(11-06-2018, 11:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: No, it was to throw shade at those that require nothing more that "I believe her" as empirical proof to wreck a person's family and his/her reputation. Ifit doesn't pertain to you, great; but thou doth protest too much. 

No, it doesn't pertain to me...but this #ibelieveher tag you threw on the end of multiple posts looked like a clue to what you meant.


It would be easier if people just said what they meant and didn't try to be cute and snarky.

[GMDino]

Just an update:

This seems like a real good system. https://t.co/8Gds58RuWt

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) December 18, 2018

[*bfine32*]

The NYT is not done investigating yet:
https://time.com/5677929/new-york-times-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct/

Quote:A New York Times report, published Saturday evening, alleges that it has corroborated more details in the case of a woman who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of thrusting his penis at her during a Yale party in the early 1980s.

If you ever want to see a sore loser, just beat a Liberal.

[Dill]

(09-16-2019, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The NYT is not done investigating yet:
https://time.com/5677929/new-york-times-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct/


If you ever want to see a sore loser, just beat a Liberal.

Once the score of a football game is in the books, people should not go back and review game film and complain about the refs.

Same for justice. Once an accused judge is confirmed, then people should stop considering new evidence.

[Belsnickel]

(09-16-2019, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The NYT is not done investigating yet:
https://time.com/5677929/new-york-times-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct/


If you ever want to see a sore loser, just beat a Liberal.

Because the relevance of someone placed in one of the highest positions in our government acting in such a way and potentially perjuring himself ends when the confirmation hearing is complete. People should not be held accountable for their actions after they are in a position of power [as long as I agree with them].

[*bfine32*]

(09-16-2019, 03:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because the relevance of someone placed in one of the highest positions in our government acting in such a way and potentially perjuring himself ends when the confirmation hearing is complete. People should not be held accountable for their actions after they are in a position of power [as long as I agree with them].

Is that snark?

If only Kavs was convicted of a crime. Everybody crying impeachment knows it is not going to happen. Dude's had his day in court. How would you feel if the GOP said we should remove RGB because she is no longer fit? 

SCOTUS, love it or hate it. It is what it is. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-16-2019, 03:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is that snark?

Not sure why you would think that.

(09-16-2019, 03:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If only Kavs was convicted of a crime.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

(09-16-2019, 03:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Everybody crying impeachment knows it is not going to happen.

People are crying impeachment? I'm honestly not paying attention to the details, just mocking the whole idea that accountability for improper behavior only matters before confirmation.

(09-16-2019, 03:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dude's had his day in court.

And if new evidence were to come to light that showed he lied and/or that allegations can be confirmed, then he can have another one.

(09-16-2019, 03:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How would you feel if the GOP said we should remove RGB because she is no longer fit? 

I would feel like it would be arbitrary an capricious without appropriate evidence. If there was something that came to light that showed she was incapable of sitting on the bench physically or mentally, then I would be okay with it. But since this is an apples and oranges comparison it doesn't much matter.

(09-16-2019, 03:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: SCOTUS, love it or hate it. It is what it is. 

I have no problem with it and the way our system should work. I just have a problem with blind partisans that like to claim they aren't.