Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[GMDino]

(09-26-2018, 05:04 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Right. Because he hasn't asked for an investigation means he's guilty. There's absolutely NO other reason.

Nope.  Just a guy who wants to maintain he is completely innocent of the charges...and doesn't want an investigation.

Seems, to me, that he should want one.

But maybe those "cringe worthy" moments he hints at are a little deeper than he wants to let on...

[jj22]

(09-26-2018, 05:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If I'm him no, because there will be something else after.  This is a rather blatant attempt to run it past the elections and thwart his confirmation.  The Republicans played dirty so this is payback, but if I'm the nominee I don't want to not be confirmed because of this payback.

I don't think Dems could get people to lie under oath and face a felony and prison time. Then demand an FBI investigation to throw them under the bus and put them in jail. Also isn't this Trumps second SCOTUS pick? Why didn't they do this to the first if it is revenge for Garland (it's not)? Too many excuses for an innocent person honestly. With all due respect.

[GMDino]

(09-26-2018, 05:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here's my thing with all the discussion about this just being Democrats attempting to delay this. This sort of thing didn't happen for Gorsuch, who was nominated for a straight up stolen seat. If there were any shady tactics to be done, that would have been the nominee to do it for.

Also, for the number of people it would take to pull together a conspiracy like this, to have these three accusers come out like this, it would've involved too many people. Something would have been outed by now. Especially given the hell Ford has gone through and the other two are likely experiencing as a result. They wouldn't put themselves through that for no reason.

Exactly.

But in the time of Trump it's easier to say "fake news" and claims it's all a conspiracy.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-26-2018, 05:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here's my thing with all the discussion about this just being Democrats attempting to delay this. This sort of thing didn't happen for Gorsuch, who was nominated for a straight up stolen seat. If there were any shady tactics to be done, that would have been the nominee to do it for.

Also, for the number of people it would take to pull together a conspiracy like this, to have these three accusers come out like this, it would've involved too many people. Something would have been outed by now. Especially given the hell Ford has gone through and the other two are likely experiencing as a result. They wouldn't put themselves through that for no reason.

Because they couldn't run Gorsuch up through the elections. Before said time limit expires, someone else will pop up and we will need a whole new investigation.  There was ample opportunity for these women to come forward during this or any of the previous FBI background checks of him with or without Feinstein.  

[GMDino]

Trump, while answering questions, called everyone from the 3rd accuser's lawyer to the Democrats "con men".

The guy found guilty of defrauding people with a fake University...while running for POTUS...never gets to call anyone ELSE a conman again in book.  

[*michaelsean*]

(09-26-2018, 06:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: Trump, while answering questions, called everyone from the 3rd accuser's lawyer to the Democrats "con men".

The guy found guilty of defrauding people with a fake University...while running for POTUS...never gets to call anyone ELSE a conman again in book.  

Takes one to know one?

[fredtoast]

(09-26-2018, 03:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What would an investigation clear up?   She isn't going to retract and he isn't going to admit. How would he prove to your satisfaction that he's innocent? 

Do you realize how insane this argument sounds?

How can we possibly know what the investigation will turn up without having an investigation.

You are trying to argue that there is no need to investigate rape accusations unless the victim has a video or DNA in her possession.  That is absurd.

Since you already know all the facts anyone needs to know please tell me how Kavanaugh knew Ford back then and what exactly was their relationship.

[fredtoast]

(09-26-2018, 05:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: There was ample opportunity for these women to come forward during this or any of the previous FBI background checks of him with or without Feinstein.  

What difference would that make.  You have already said there is no need for an investigation.  So it doesn't really matter when they bring it up does it?

[*michaelsean*]

(09-26-2018, 07:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Do you realize how insane this argument sounds?

How can we possibly know what the investigation will turn up without having an investigation.

You are trying to argue that there is no need to investigate rape accusations unless the victim has a video or DNA in her possession.  That is absurd.

Since you already know all the facts anyone needs to know please tell me how Kavanaugh knew Ford back then and what exactly was their relationship.

Or a witness. Some sort of proof outside of she says so 30 years later. How does someone defend themselves from this?

[fredtoast]

(09-26-2018, 07:30 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Or a witness. Some sort of proof outside of she says so 30 years later.  How does someone defend themselves from this?

If the investigation does not support Ms Ford's claims then Kavanaugh has nothing to worry about.

But the question is "Why should there not be an investigation?"

Since you know for sure he is innocent then at least tell me how Kavanaugh knew Ford and what their relationship was back then.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-26-2018, 08:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the investigation does not support Ms Ford's claims then Kavanaugh has nothing to worry about.

But the question is "Why should there not be an investigation?"

Since you know for sure he is innocent then at least tell me how Kavanaugh knew Ford and what their relationship was back then.

I never said for sure he’s innocent. I said without a credible reason these accusations are coming in now or some form of irrefutable evidence is presented by the accusers there is no reason to delay the vote. The minute you turn something political you lose credit with me. And that’s what they have done. There is nothing the FBI can come up with that will exonerate him to half the country. They can’t prove he didn’t do it. That doesn’t seem to bother anybody.

They had a friend in common. Why?

[ballsofsteel]

Like other Trumpsters have pointed out, Kavanagh the virgin was investigated six times by the FBI. What would another investigation find that the previous six didn't ? Are there different levels or types of FBI investigations? Did the previous six only go back so many years?
Anyone know?

[Belsnickel]

(09-26-2018, 08:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I never said for sure he’s innocent. I said without a credible reason these accusations are coming in now or some form of irrefutable evidence is presented by the accusers there is no reason to delay the vote. The minute you turn something political you lose credit with me. And that’s what they have done. There is nothing the FBI can come up with that will exonerate him to half the country. They can’t prove he didn’t do it. That doesn’t seem to bother anybody.

Then you must not have credit with anybody, because everything is political.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-26-2018, 07:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What difference would that make.  You have already said there is no need for an investigation.  So it doesn't really matter when they bring it up does it?

When the NY Times refuses to run a negative story about a Republican, because it can't get corroboration from "so called" witnesses, you know that it must be bullshit.  

The POTUS reiterated today in a press conference that he does want to hear what Dr. Ford has to say.  Nobody is "blowing this off", as much as it appears to be a contrived effort to prevent a nomination from taking seat.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-26-2018, 08:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Then you must not have credit with anybody, because everything is political.

I should say some credibility. If I’m asked to believe them about something? Then yes.

[Belsnickel]

(09-26-2018, 05:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Because they couldn't run Gorsuch up through the elections. Before said time limit expires, someone else will pop up and we will need a whole new investigation.  There was ample opportunity for these women to come forward during this or any of the previous FBI background checks of him with or without Feinstein.  

If the FBI don't seek these women out during their investigation, how do they even know one is going on, let alone who to talk to? Ford sent her letter in July. The others have come forward because usually when one victim of someone comes out, others gain courage to do the same.

As for another one coming up, the GOP can choose to ignore that, just like they have these others. I just think that a good faith effort for these first ones would be adequate. And the deadline is January 2, not November 6.

[Belsnickel]

(09-26-2018, 08:35 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: When the NY Times refuses to run a negative story about a Republican, because it can't get corroboration from "so called" witnesses, you know that it must be bullshit.  

This is, again, a misrepresentation of what occurred. Please stop repeating this false claim.

The NYT reiterating that they did not “decline” or “pass” on the Ramirez story as claimed by several conservative politicians. They were simply unable to secure the central interview with her (or with the contemporaneous corroborators who spoke to NYer): https://t.co/EofWO9ZE9G pic.twitter.com/GSyqSXyZm1

— Ronan Farrow (@RonanFarrow) September 25, 2018

[Dill]

(09-26-2018, 08:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I should say some credibility. If I’m asked to believe them about something?  Then yes.

LOL I give you a little cred, Mike, even when you ARE political!!

[SunsetBengal]

(09-26-2018, 08:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is, again, a misrepresentation of what occurred. Please stop repeating this false claim.

The NYT reiterating that they did not “decline” or “pass” on the Ramirez story as claimed by several conservative politicians. They were simply unable to secure the central  interview with her (or with the contemporaneous corroborators who spoke to NYer): https://t.co/EofWO9ZE9G pic.twitter.com/GSyqSXyZm1

— Ronan Farrow (@RonanFarrow) September 25, 2018

Well, I've been hearing that people she named all denied the events.  Sounds like a failure to corroborate, to me.  I'm sure that the NYT will present things that show them in the best, anti Right light that they can.

It's not helping that classmates from Yale are calling into radio talk shows, telling how Left leaning affiliates like Huff Po, and others have called them, attempting to lure them into saying things to aid the story, even going so far as to paint a picture and try to lead the person to agree with what they said.

Is that journalism?  I don't think so.  I'm thinking that this whole deal is just something cooked up to delay the seating of our next Supreme Court Justice.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-26-2018, 08:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If the FBI don't seek these women out during their investigation, how do they even know one is going on, let alone who to talk to? Ford sent her letter in July. The others have come forward because usually when one victim of someone comes out, others gain courage to do the same.

As for another one coming up, the GOP can choose to ignore that, just like they have these others. I just think that a good faith effort for these first ones would be adequate. And the deadline is January 2, not November 6.

Dude even when I agree with you correct me. I said when they are seated and you were like nah.