Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[GMDino]

(09-28-2018, 04:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I didn't actually see her, just read, and I heard she remained calm and composed which stunned me seeing how many time she was called courageous and heroic.  That she held it together under that kind of scrutiny is quite impressive.  

Yes, but what would YOU call her?  She went on national television to relive what she says she lived through...all while a large segment of America believes she just "made it up" because she hates Trump.

Personally I think that anyone willing to go public with their story is a courageous and heroic, and hopefully a catalyst for others who have remained silent.

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2018, 04:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: 1. I could have sworn those goalposts were right here.  Seems someone keeps moving them.  


2. And she also had a woman who didn't want her name known because she claimed to be a victim of a sexual assault.  I'll forgive Feinstein for being understanding even if she doesn't meet your high standards for what she "should have" done.


3. So you don't think the FBI would want to know the accuser's name?   Is it remotely possible in your clearly professional  and most knowledgeable opinion that Ford maybe didn't want to drag up the past again for fear of having to do it publicly?


4. ...or her friends whom she talked to buy didn't show the letter too.


5. I'm sorry.  I accidentally recited the Green Lantern Oath once and feel it's my duty to protect the universe from bad people.  

1. Not sure how a goalpost has been moved but it sounds cool

2. Who knew that sharing information you have about a crime as serious as sexual assault/ possible attempted rape with the proper authorities is considered to be such a high standard. You may want to reevaluate yours

3. Of course they would want the name. Doesn't mean they wouldn't keep her name confidential. You think the FBI shares the name of everyone that provides them intel?

4. Yeah, not showing the letter is a sticking point in leaking the contents of a letter isn't it?

5. This is most likely one of those things that made sense in your head.

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2018, 04:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes, but what would YOU call her?  She went on national television to relive what she says she lived through...all while a large segment of America believes she just "made it up" because she hates Trump.

Personally I think that anyone willing to go public with their story is a courageous and heroic, and hopefully a catalyst for others who have remained silent.

So you consider Kavs courageous and heroic?

[GMDino]

(09-28-2018, 04:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: but she didn't share the contents of the letter with her friends, unless she was lying.

Or unless you are confusing the story.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2018/09/28/feinstein-denies-that-her-office-leaked-fords-letter-accusing-kavanaugh-n2523365

Quote:Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) pressed Feinstein on whether or not her staff had leaked the letter.


"I don't believe my staff would leak it," she replied, but admitted that, "I have not asked that question directly, but I do not believe they would."

She later clarified that "the answer is no."

Cornyn asked if she had asked her staff.

"I just did," she replied. "[Chief of Staff] Jennifer [Duck] reminds me I've asked her before about it, and that's true."

Feinstein later said that one of Ford's friends likely leaked the story to the press.

"It’s my understanding that her story was leaked before the letter became public," Feinstein said. "She testified that she had spoken to her friends about it and it’s most likely that that’s how the story leaked and that she had been asked by press. But it did not leak from us, I assure you of that."

Ryan Grim from The Intercept, which had initially reported on the letter, confirmed that Feinstein's office was not behind the leak.

Quote:
[/url]Ryan Grim

@ryangrim





Feinstein's staff did not leak the letter to The Intercept
6:33 PM - Sep 27, 2018

• 
  11.1K
• 
  4,767 people are talking about this
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy

[url=https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256]
The story was out there and that there was a letter.

[Belsnickel]

(09-28-2018, 02:46 PM)Stonyhands Wrote: What false things did Kavenaugh say?

That he has a fear of flying? After an extensive history of flying?

Did he name witnesses that refute his claim...all of them.

Did he remember the exact details of what allegedly transpired in the bedroom but conveniently forget how or who drove him back home immediately after?

That he was unaware he had received stolen emails. That he had not been a part of helping get a judicial nominee confirmed while working in the White House. That he never went drinking on a weeknight.

Should I go on? Those are just the most blatant that have occurred since his confirmation hearings started.

(09-28-2018, 03:18 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, let's say that they do an investigation.  Let's say that it's shown that Dr. Ford and the others are all big liars.  Just how many of those Democrat Senators will be voting Yea to confirming Kavanaugh?  Hell, for that matter, just how many of them would be willing to apologize to the man, for calling him things like rapist?

There will be a handful, but not many. He still, even prior to the allegations, caused serious doubts among many Senators with regards to his credibility. And did any of the Senators call him a rapist?

[Bengalzona]

(09-28-2018, 04:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You really didn't answer the question. Do you think his high School and college activities were looked at in any prior FBI background investigation?

Yep, just the same as receiving things such as:

Anybody who sent such an email to my wife and/or anyone that played party to it, might see me get a little heated too and not because they called me a rapist.

It's because no one was out to get Ford. Everyone (almost) says they believe she was assaulted as a youth. Unfortunately, the committee and this forum has only treated one side with dignity and respect.

Sure, his high school and college activities were "looked at". But there are different levels of investigating things based upon what the scope of the investigation. You know that already. A background check for a federal judge position probably just had a cursory review of those activities, similar to the security clearance checks we had for the Army. Right? Looking into something specifically based upon an accusation, you would expect a more intensive search.

It is unfortunate, but people in the public eye and their families get things sent to them from deranged people sometimes. So, you suggest that the way a person applying for a SCOTUS position should respond is by making a political-based rant about it during his nomination hearing?

Kavanaugh did not have to go through the rant or to make it politically biased. He chose to, just as the GOP members of the committee have conveniently chose to ignore the political bias from a potential SCOTUS justice.

[GMDino]

(09-28-2018, 04:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you consider Kavs courageous and heroic?

For defending himself?  Not as much.  I think almost everyone would defend themselves whereas fewer will accuse and reopen their own wounds.

But I know, I know...white men gotta stick together in your world where there are "under attack".

[*bfine32*]

(09-28-2018, 04:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or unless you are confusing the story.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2018/09/28/feinstein-denies-that-her-office-leaked-fords-letter-accusing-kavanaugh-n2523365


[url=https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256][/url]
The story was out there and that there was a letter.

Well hell, if Fienstien said she didn't leak it then she's totally innocent

[GMDino]

(09-28-2018, 05:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well hell, if Fienstien said she didn't leak it then she's totally innocent

Well hell, if you say she did despite her saying she didn't, the committee accepting that she didn't and the guy who wrote the story saying her staff didn't then she must be totally guilty.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-28-2018, 02:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You have no idea what the investigation might reveal.  For example what if they go to the house where Kavanaugh, Judge, and PJ Smyth were drinking on July 1 and it matches the description of the house where Ford said she was assaulted?  What if interviews with other classmates reveal people who did hear about what happened?

It is absurd to claim an investigation will not provide any more information.  Only a blind devotee to Kavanaugh would make such a claim.

I'm not a blind devotee to anyone. You are really full of assumptions about everyone aren't you? Well we all know what they say about that.
I don't know who he is, or what he's done and don't care. He's been approved by many as an acceptable candidate and is respected so that's all we really need to know. It's up to the committee to determine if he's a good person for the job,

I don't give 2 shits about what party he attended as a Teenager, ffs he's not a teenager anymore, he's way beyond that, he has a family and daughters.

All I know is I'm sick of the political bs, the timing the playing on emotions is a purely democrat move. When you have no evidence, appeal to the emotional side of someone. Show me some facts, evidence anything that is undisputable and I'll say kick him out. Until then, there's nothing there but another political show.

Whoop de do about the calendar. When I was in HS everyone know who my friends were that I hung out the most with. Pretty easy to say he was with so-n-so, cause that would probably be true, and everyone knew where I worked at. So it's not unusal for people to see me at my work. Nothing there that sticks out. I don't give an f if he's a D or an R. There's nothing there.

[Belsnickel]

(09-28-2018, 05:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'm not a blind devotee to anyone. You are really full of assumptions about everyone aren't you? Well we all know what they say about that.
I don't know who he is, or what he's done and don't care. He's been approved by many as an acceptable candidate and is respected so that's all we really need to know. It's up to the committee to determine if he's a good person for the job,

I don't give 2 shits about what party he attended as a Teenager, ffs he's not a teenager anymore, he's way beyond that, he has a family and daughters.

All I know is I'm sick of the political bs, the timing the playing on emotions is a purely democrat move. When you have no evidence, appeal to the emotional side of someone. Show me some facts, evidence anything that is undisputable and I'll say kick him out. Until then, there's nothing there but another political show.

Whoop de do about the calendar. When I was in HS everyone know who my friends were that I hung out the most with. Pretty easy to say he was with so-n-so, cause that would probably be true, and everyone knew where I worked at. So it's not unusal for people to see me at my work. Nothing there that sticks out. I don't give an f if he's a D or an R. There's nothing there.

[NATI BENGALS]

How is saying hey wait. There are multiple sexual assault allegations against this scotus nominee, lets take a look at this stuff, political?

I would think jamming a sexual deviant drunken scotus nominee through because they are afraid they will lose power is the political move. You know. The same party that didnt let the last dually elected prez to get a proper scotus nominee hearing....

Yall are crazy with this bullshit

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-28-2018, 02:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think the point is that it would make it go away more securely if it is false.

Why one side, proclaiming innocence, is o against any investigation is really weird to me.  If it was me I'd be demanding one.  I could wait another two weeks to get a lifetime job.

I don't recall hearing Kavanaugh say he was against it.
If he did, I apologize for that, but it's still a waste of time, he's already been checked by the FBI multiple times?

Again, no dates, no address etc, nothing to go by that can/cant be disputed by both sides. It's a no win for both. Let's waste more tax payer money.

(09-28-2018, 02:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What difference does it make if it was a trial or a job interview?

Don't you want the best questions that would get to the truth in either situation?

A lot, it's actually against the law to ask about someones sexual preference (straight or not) during a job interview. You should know this, you are a lawyer aren't you?

The claims by Ford belong in a different arena. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

[Belsnickel]

(09-28-2018, 05:42 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: A lot, it's actually against the law to ask about someones sexual preference (straight or not) during a job interview. You should know this, you are a lawyer aren't you?

The claims by Ford belong in a different arena. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

Being a sexual predator does not count as a sexual preference.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-28-2018, 02:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They pulled her because she wasn't giving them what they wanted, which was to slobber over Kavanaugh. From the outset, neither side in the Senate had any real interest in the truth. Kavanaugh has said so many demonstrably false things we know he has no interest in the truth. So really Ford was just victimized again.

Talk about innocent til PROVEN guilty. 

You've already judged and found him guilty with the flimisiest of evidence.

Did you feel the same way when Clinton was being impeached? You know when there was actual DNA evidence??? Ahh never mind, you're too young for that one.

[Belsnickel]

(09-28-2018, 05:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Talk about innocent til PROVEN guilty. 

First, that is a standard for the courts, not for this process. Two, where did I say anyone was guilty?

(09-28-2018, 05:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You've already judged and found him guilty with the flimisiest of evidence.

Where?

(09-28-2018, 05:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Did you feel the same way when Clinton was being impeached? You know when there was actual DNA evidence??? Ahh never mind, you're too young for that one.

I wasn't paying attention to politics when Clinton was impeached since I was 13, so you're right, I was too young for that one. But I find the allegations against Bill Clinton to be credible and believe him to be a piece of shit for that, and many other reasons.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-28-2018, 03:34 PM)Dill Wrote: That's a good question, Sunset, though I did not hear any Democratic senators calling Kavanaugh a "rapist."  I am not sure they should apologize for due diligence.

Your question goes the other way as well. If stories that Kavanaugh and his gang were drunken predators is corroborated, how many Republicans would still vote for him?

(09-28-2018, 03:35 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The real question here is, how many of the GOP members of the committee would vote against Kavanaugh if the FBI report indicated there was information to substantiate the allegations?

How many of the good ole boys would be willing to vote against the wishes of Dear Leader Trump?

If it's proven that he did do the type of things that Dr. Ford alleges, hopefully they would simply withdraw the nomination.  Trump can find any number of conservative justice candidates.  However, I seriously doubt that to be the case.  I honestly think this is all just political grandstanding to delay any Trump nomination from confirmation, until after the mid-terms.

[Belsnickel]

(09-28-2018, 05:56 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: If it's proven that he did do the type of things that Dr. Ford alleges, hopefully they would simply withdraw the nomination.  Trump can find any number of conservative justice candidates.  However, I seriously doubt that to be the case.  I honestly think this is all just political grandstanding to delay any Trump nomination from confirmation, until after the mid-terms.

So you believe that Dr. Ford made false allegations for political means?

[SunsetBengal]

(09-28-2018, 05:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So you believe that Dr. Ford made false allegations for political means?

I do.

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/truth-comes-ford-afraid-fly-dc-not-hawaii-tahiti-costa-rica-french-polynesia/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=empowerconservatives&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2018-09-28


If she will make up a "fear of flying", what else will she make up?

I'm not saying that she was never assaulted, just not the scene she's been painting.

But, since you asked me if I thought she way lying, allow me to tell you what I really think.. It's a fact that Dr. Ford owns homes in not just one, but two of the most expensive real estate areas in the Nation. I'm willing to bet that she's been quite the donor to some of the California Democrats, over the years. I don't think for a moment that it isn't beyond her, or anyone in her position to go out on a limb to help the political cause with false accusations. If any of what she claims is proven to be true? I hope Kavanaugh burns in hell. However, since anyone that she named is emphatically denying anything of the sort happened, I would be shocked if an investigation turned up anything of real merit.

[Au165]

Trump ordered the FBI to reopen the background check and investigate. I’m critical of Trump often but glad to see he is at least willing to let the process play out fully.