Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2018, 01:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Didn't say I blamed her; I said she should be ashamed.

She has nothing to be ashamed of.  She is just doing her job.  She is not lying about anything.

What is so "shameful" about a delay?  

[jj22]

Trump supporters - She should be ashamed!

Everyone else - What about these Republicans that keep getting nominated and voted for with backgrounds that include accusations of sexual assault.... Do you have anything to say about them?

Trump supporters - She should be ashamed!

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2018, 01:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: She has nothing to be ashamed of.  She is just doing her job.  She is not lying about anything.

What is so "shameful" about a delay?  

Because she knowingly sat on information about a possible sexual assault for political gain. If this is true: what if Kavs had sexually assaulted someone else while she sat on this information?

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2018, 01:13 PM)jj22 Wrote: Trump supporters - She should be ashamed!

Everyone else - What about these Republicans that keep getting nominated and voted for with backgrounds that include accusations of sexual assault.... Do you have anything to say about them?

Trump supporters - She should be ashamed!

I've clearly stated that the accused and the accuser should be interviewed before the confirmation moves forward; so I suppose I'm not Trump supporter. Finestien sitting on this info have 0 to do with President Trump. I fully understand that you think EVERYTHING does, but it does not.

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2018, 01:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because she knowingly sat on information about a possible sexual assault for political gain. If this is true: what if Kavs had sexually assaulted someone else while she sat on this information?

How would releasing the info early stop him from sexually assaulting someone else?

[fredtoast]

(09-13-2018, 11:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You mean facts like the police can't order you to exit your vehicle?

I did not own anyone with that claim.  I deleted it before anyone made any comment about it.

So what is your point?

[Belsnickel]

(09-17-2018, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You anticipated my follow up question: if the accusers recollection of the event is 100% accurate does that disqualify him from the SC?  Saying yes rather flies in the face of the entire purpose of the juvenile justice system.  Also, the brain development fact is widely accepted fact, and it does not apply to men only.  

I disagree. The juvenile justice system is established to acknowledge that young people do stupid shit and shouldn't necessarily be punished for life for it. They have an opportunity to learn and move on, being a productive member of society. Something like this disqualifying him from SCOTUS isn't the same. He is a productive member of society, he still has a lifetime appointment, he doesn't have a criminal record to carry with him all of his life that disqualifies him from jobs, voting, housing, etc. I don't think the comparison is an appropriate one.

(09-17-2018, 12:48 PM)jj22 Wrote: How is this even possible?

Not all laws are criminal and committing a crime if violating laws like she did often requires some sort of intent. They have phrases like "knowingly or willfully" in them, which can be tough to prove. This is why there was no prosecution.

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2018, 01:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How would releasing the info early stop him from sexually assaulting someone else?

Are you seriously suggesting that timely alert of a possible sexual predator is not important?

WTS

It could prevent a woman from placing herself in a vulnerable situation with him.

[Belsnickel]

(09-17-2018, 01:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The lack of a name adds some more skepticism back

Agreed. I'm still leaning to her side with that, but it's not a hard lean.

[Dill]

(09-17-2018, 01:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:
The lack of a name adds some more skepticism back

Should have come forward much sooner. In terms of "is it relevant?", I would say it does not make them who they are now, but it certainly should be considered for something as important as SCOTUS as we, traditionally, add a higher level of scrutiny to our top officials.

As I understand it, the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, originally did not want her name to go public.  And without a name, the accusation is really useless, liable to harm more than help opposition to Kavanaugh.

According to Ford's letter to Feinstein, she asked Feinstein to sit on the information until they could speak personally.  It was only when reporters started knocking on here door and she saw misinformation about the incident appearing in print that she gave the ok to publicize her name.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/politics/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-letter-feinstein/index.html

I agree with Benton and others here that this guy has already shown himself rather to ready to deny and spin his record.  His not being interviewed for the job of plummer, but for a position which puts him in judgment of a wide spectrum of law.

[BmorePat87]

(09-17-2018, 02:32 PM)Dill Wrote: As I understand it, the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, originally did not want her name to go public.  And without a name, the accusation is really useless, liable to harm more than help opposition to Kavanaugh.

According to Ford's letter to Feinstein, she asked Feinstein to sit on the information until they could speak personally.  It was only when reporters started knocking on here door and she saw misinformation about the incident appearing in print that she gave the ok to publicize here name.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/politics/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-letter-feinstein/index.html

I agree with Benton and others here that this guy has already shown himself rather to ready to deny and spin his record.  His not being interviewed for the job of plummer, but for a position which puts him in judgment of a wide spectrum of law.

I meant her lack of naming him to her therapist. 

[Dill]

(09-17-2018, 02:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I meant her lack of naming him to her therapist. 

Understood.  I add that I can understand a reluctance to do that.

E.g., therapist might decide he/she is required to report sexual assault, just as you teachers are.  If you don't want that then you withhold info.

[jj22]

Oh but it is all about Trump. Can you imagine the outrage if this was Obama's nominee. Hell Obama's nominee didn't get a vote and what exactly did he do again to not deserve a vote? Nothing close to these scandals.

But hey, no problem voting in a guy accused of sexual assault. I think the GOP, and Trump supporters have made that pretty clear.

[ballsofsteel]

(09-17-2018, 12:54 PM)jj22 Wrote: A cop wouldn't buy that If you break the law you have committed a crime.

40 years of investigations. Over 100 of them, and nothing. Crickets. This from Republicans who hate her and would have surely found something ANYTHING if it was there.

Sometimes all it takes is some common sense.

in the mean time yall busy trying to act like trump is innocent while already folks are being indicted and flipping. didn't take 40 years and over 100 investigations. imagine if it did and we were still talking about collusion. Yall would think it's outrageous after all these years and not finding anything. Well that's what many Americans think about these 40 year old and counting Hillary accusationsRR

Republican men are scared of strong women like Hillary. Republican women,s role is to reproduce and speak when spoken to only.

[ballsofsteel]

Kavanaugh must be a hell of a sports fan. Reports are he spent over $200K on sports tickets. Can you believe it?

[Benton]

(09-17-2018, 04:09 PM)jj22 Wrote:   Hell Obama's nominee didn't get a vote and what exactly did he do again to not deserve a vote?  

Rumor has it, he spoke to Obama. McConnell said he clearly drew the line at anyone who had spoken to the POTUS, or even acknowledged that we had a POTUS at that time.



Seriously, though, scandal and accusations are just scandals and accusations. The GOP was scuzzy not to consider Obama's appointment just because he was Obama's appointment. Dems would be equally scuzzy to not consider Kavannaugh. As I've said before, he should be a solid candidate for most people in both parties as he's just pro-big business and not completely anti-anything.

[ballsofsteel]

(09-17-2018, 05:52 PM)Benton Wrote: Rumor has it, he spoke to Obama. McConnell said he clearly drew the line at anyone who had spoken to the POTUS, or even acknowledged that we had a POTUS at that time.



Seriously, though, scandal and accusations are just scandals and accusations. The GOP was scuzzy not to consider Obama's appointment just because he was Obama's appointment. Dems would be equally scuzzy to not consider Kavannaugh. As I've said before, he should be a solid candidate for most people in both parties as he's just pro-big business and not completely anti-anything.

As far as you know.

[*bfine32*]

Well it looks like the accuser and the accused will be heard.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/brett-kavanaugh-testimony/index.html

Kudos to the administration for doing the right thing.

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2018, 07:10 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: As far as you know.

I mentioned this here before; unfortunately, it has fallen on deaf ears. There is no place on the Bengals Message Board for political signatures. This is a sports forum and PnR is merely a subforum. Many on here in other forums want nothing to do with folks political biases.

[GMDino]

(09-17-2018, 07:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I mentioned this here before; unfortunately, it has fallen on deaf ears. There is no place on the Bengals Message Board for political signatures. This is a sports forum and PnR is merely a subforum. Many on here in other forums want nothing to do with folks political biases.

So report it.  Write a strongly worded letter maybe?