Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2018, 10:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Seriously, anyone who can't acknowledge the real reasons behind the delay is someone so partisan they don't deserve the time it takes to disprove them.

I'm not going to deny that Feinstein sat on it for political reasons. Everything that has been done on both sides of this has been done with a political calculus. What I find interesting is that there are people discussing a presumption of innocence with regards to Kavanaugh, yet they abandon that with this situation. We have information that Ford didn't want this shared and Feinstein was waiting for Ford's ok to do so. Yet people are all about assigning nefarious intent to the actions she took. At the same time, there are those unwilling to see the partisan moves on the left and are assigning them to the right.

Again, I don't doubt the political motives behind Feinstein's actions, but this double standard is something I have been finding interesting. There are a ton of red flags with regards to Kavanaugh based on his testimony and his actions in front of the committee. Neither side comes out clean from this in any way because of the way they handled it all.

[GMDino]

(10-05-2018, 12:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Rather telling you didn't even try and dispute a single point made.  It's ok though, it's late, go to bed.  You can shill some more tomorrow.

It is, as you say:

(10-04-2018, 10:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Seriously, anyone who can't acknowledge the real reasons behind the delay is someone so partisan they don't deserve the time it takes to disprove them.

Matt discussed the "Kavanaugh must be innocent because there is no evidence" vs "Feinstein must be guilty because I said so" already.

I'm more disappointed that someone in law enforcement supports the idea that "eh, it was a long time ago and it would be hard to prove so why even investigate". Back with the B side "they need to hurry this up!" But that's not partisan on your part...I'm totally sure of it.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-05-2018, 07:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not going to deny that Feinstein sat on it for political reasons. Everything that has been done on both sides of this has been done with a political calculus. What I find interesting is that there are people discussing a presumption of innocence with regards to Kavanaugh, yet they abandon that with this situation. We have information that Ford didn't want this shared and Feinstein was waiting for Ford's ok to do so. Yet people are all about assigning nefarious intent to the actions she took. At the same time, there are those unwilling to see the partisan moves on the left and are assigning them to the right.

Again, I don't doubt the political motives behind Feinstein's actions, but this double standard is something I have been finding interesting. There are a ton of red flags with regards to Kavanaugh based on his testimony and his actions in front of the committee. Neither side comes out clean from this in any way because of the way they handled it all.

I don't think it's the presumption of innocence as much as it is zero corroborating evidence.  I'm surely not going to state this didn't happen, but there is zero evidence it did.  Add in the lack of detail so that someone can defend themselves, and it's tough.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2018, 03:36 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: All politics aside.  Do you think this is the best possible Justice for our country for 50+ yrs?  

Honest question.  And if not, who would you have preferred?    Sorry if this was covered.

Quite honestly, I have no idea.  I'm not up on potential candidates and what they bring to the table.  I tend to not voice an opinion on something I'm not well informed on.

(10-05-2018, 07:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not going to deny that Feinstein sat on it for political reasons. Everything that has been done on both sides of this has been done with a political calculus. What I find interesting is that there are people discussing a presumption of innocence with regards to Kavanaugh, yet they abandon that with this situation. We have information that Ford didn't want this shared and Feinstein was waiting for Ford's ok to do so. Yet people are all about assigning nefarious intent to the actions she took. At the same time, there are those unwilling to see the partisan moves on the left and are assigning them to the right.

Someone leaked it intentionally.  The timing is far too suspicious to ascribe anything but a deliberate delaying tactic.  You acknowledge this yourself. 

Quote:Again, I don't doubt the political motives behind Feinstein's actions, but this double standard is something I have been finding interesting. There are a ton of red flags with regards to Kavanaugh based on his testimony and his actions in front of the committee. Neither side comes out clean from this in any way because of the way they handled it all.

Except it's not a double standard because the situations are radically different.  Unlike accusations against Kavanaugh we have several facts we can hang our hat on, facts that have convinced a person such as yourself of the political motivation behind the series of events.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2018, 08:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: Matt discussed the "Kavanaugh must be innocent because there is no evidence" vs "Feinstein must be guilty because I said so" already.

Yeah, you most of missed the part where he agrees with me.

Quote:I'm more disappointed that someone in law enforcement supports the idea that "eh, it was a long time ago and it would be hard to prove so why even investigate".  Back with the B side "they need to hurry this up!"  But that's not partisan on your part...I'm totally sure of it.

You're going to have to find the post in which I said that, please.

[GMDino]

(10-05-2018, 09:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, you most of missed the part where he agrees with me.

He said there are partisans on BOTH sides. Just because you think that means he agree the Democrats are partisan while ignoring the Republicans being the same doesn't mean he "agrees".

(10-05-2018, 09:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're going to have to find the post in which I said that, please.

Did you want and FBI investigation? And did you agree they had hurry because "Feinstein waited too long" to release the information? That should save some time...busy Friday, ya know.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2018, 09:30 AM)GMDino Wrote: He said there are partisans on BOTH sides.  Just because you think that means he agree the Democrats are partisan while ignoring the Republicans being the same doesn't mean he "agrees".

He literally says he agrees with my point, that Feinstein sat on this for political reasons.  That was the point I was making, he agreed with it, quit tap dancing.

Quote:Did you want and FBI investigation?

Wait, did you just make a definitive accusation against me without knowing if it was true?

[Yojimbo]

(10-05-2018, 09:08 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think it's the presumption of innocence as much as it is zero corroborating evidence.  I'm surely not going to state this didn't happen, but there is zero evidence it did.  Add in the lack of detail so that someone can defend themselves, and it's tough.

There is circumstantial evidence, just not video/dna/eye witness evidence. The calendar entry on July 12 1982 and her therapists notes both corroborate her story.

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2018, 07:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fred, you have to answer my question first, before you are allowed to ask others. 

Who accused my babysitter?

What proof did they provide? 

A child who was alone with her claims she was sexually assaulted.  The only evidence is the childs statement.

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2018, 07:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  

Of course it matters who accused them and what evidence the accuser provided. It would also matter that my babysitter had been performing in that job for over 2 decades and had been vetted a minimum of 6 times by the FBI. That may weigh a little more on my babysitter's than someone that has never been vetted to that degree stating my baby sitter assaulted her, but cannot tell me anything else and the "witnesses" state they have no idea what the person is talking about.
It would be irrational to think otherwise.

I'm not sure what point you and you Fred are trying to make. I can only assume you are trying to sell yourselves on something. 

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.

[Benton]

(10-05-2018, 03:36 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: All politics aside.  Do you think this is the best possible Justice for our country for 50+ yrs?  

Honest question.  And if not, who would you have preferred?    Sorry if this was covered.

Jumping into y'all's conversation, but, personally, I thought kav was one of the worst choices. Mostly because his history tends to favor big business (which has us in an economic quagmire), increased executive privileges (which goes against checks and balances) and a lack of bench experience. Since his hearing,he's also apparently very partisan and too temperamental.

Ford allegations aside, the guy doesn't look like a good choice 

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2018, 07:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Intent often means that a person is not going to be charged, but it doesn't mean they didn't break the law.

Wrong.  Intent is an element of the law.  Even if you are charged you can go to court and if intent is not proven then you are not guilty of breaking any law.

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2018, 07:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 3. Sure she broke the law, but I freely admit the law decided she didn't commit a crime. See you even differentiate the difference between breaking the law and committing a crime. 

She never broke nthe law.  She never committed a crime.  Intent is required to break the law or commit a crime.

We have been over this a hundred times.  Your pertisan blinders keep you from acknowledging the truth.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-05-2018, 09:55 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: There is circumstantial evidence, just not video/dna/eye witness evidence. The calendar entry on July 12 1982 and her therapists notes both corroborate her story.

Did they get the notes, and that's still not a corroboration. She probably should have turned those over immediately instead of trying to release parts of them now if they give her an interview. Now that she knows where she slipped up. You can't use a calendar entry if you don't have a date.  At best you could say if it happened it's possible it could have been this day.  She wasn't even sure what year for a while.
 

[jj22]

Trump supporters spending the morning celebrating the FBI's finding of no corroborating evidence.... Even though the WH admittedly didn't let the FBI interview any of Ford's collaborating witnesses. Got to interview corroborating witnesses in order to find corroborating evidence. #commonsensepolitics

If they want to be proud of that then so be it. Personally if I was innocent, I would have wanted all that doubt removed, but Republicans seem more interested in trolling with this line, then justice for either Kav or Ford. Their tactic might have worked to get him in, but it didn't do any favors for him in the history books.

Trump supporters think Dems were trying to end Kav when in reality they were the only ones trying to clear him. Republicans acted guilty and left Kav's legacy up to debate, division and skepticism. Their tactic failed him, and if he is innocent, that is a shame.

[GMDino]

(10-05-2018, 09:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: He literally says he agrees with my point, that Feinstein sat on this for political reasons.  That was the point I was making, he agreed with it, quit tap dancing.

...and then points out that solely laying "partisanship" on the side of the Democrats is a fallacy.

(10-05-2018, 09:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, did you just make a definitive accusation against me without knowing if it was true?

No, I just figured I'd give you a shot before I had to waste part of my morning doing this.

(09-14-2018, 08:57 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's rather obvious that Feinstein's "new information" is a an attempt to delay a confirmation vote.  If she had it all this time then why wait to release it until now?  Lastly, if it's about something he did in High School, unless it's horrifically criminal, it shouldn't matter at all.  Unless the Dem's new position is that people don't grow and mature from adolescence into adulthood, i.e. the very bedrock of the juvenile justice system.

(09-14-2018, 09:08 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite honestly, unless the allegations or of a very serious nature, and this doesn't seem likely as nothing was apparently done about them when they were first made, then this is an obvious ploy to delay the final vote.  The timing couldn't make this anymore apparent.


Do you know how many hours of work went into to vetting this man's background?  Again, the likelihood of this being of any real importance is small to say the least.

(09-18-2018, 10:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, to a point.  An even better question here is "is it provable"?  Right now you have the accuser's version against Kavanaugh and his friend's word.  How do you prove an allegation from 35 years ago?  If there is no "proof" other than the accuser's word then I don't see how anyone could logically hold Kavanaugh to account for it.  Every Dem will, using #metoo as a political weapon, but should a logical, fair minded person judge anyone guilty based on a 35 year old accusation with no corroboration?


Exactly how will you know if that occurs?  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the accuser's story is 100% true.  By her own account Kavanaugh was "staggering drunk".  he could truthfully say he has no memory of it ever happening even if it did.  Which leads us back to the original question, how are you even going to determine if the story is true?



But it absolutely is.  You're merely arguing degrees of severity while completely acknowledging my core point.  We're also discussing a completely unprovable allegation.  In any event, your view of the juvenile justice system is a bit outdated, at least by CA standards.  Record sealing is the norm for all juvenile offenses that successfully complete probation and the concept of pre-booking diversion has taken root with the aim at preventing juvenile offenders from even having an arrest record.

(09-20-2018, 03:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As described it would certainly be sexual battery.  If the accusation is true there's no way anyone could logically claim no crime was committed.  As to whether it would have ever been filed by the DA, based on experience I'd say there's little to no chance that the incident would have been prosecuted had it been reported back then.  The DA tends to avoid "one on one" cases, essentially when the only evidence is one person's word against another.  Throw in the drinking teenagers and the fuzzy memory about most of the incident and you're looking at a DIE, declined to file due to insufficient evidence.

(09-25-2018, 09:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Other allegations?  If you're referring to the New Yorker allegations, those have been roundly excoriated and don't appear to be worthy of serious consideration.  This is a rather widely held opinion.  Yes, some senators have said that the, he said she said, of an event thirty-five years old will not change their mind.  I can see their reasoning for saying so even if I don't agree with it.  


A reasonable point.  I would counter by saying that a delay of three days rather pales in the face of a delay of two months.  Point being, if the Dems wanted these allegations to be investigated at length they should have come forward with them when they received them, months ago.  As they did not it appears a thorough investigation is not really their objective.

(09-25-2018, 09:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Depends.  What doesn't depend is being able to claim you want a thorough investigation when your own actions show you clearly don't care about that at all.  Something about lying in the bed you made comes to mind.

(09-26-2018, 09:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes.  If a committee ends up with no female members from one party it can only be due to sexism.  I mean, it's not like both parties have a very structured way that these committee seats are apportioned or anything.


I'll reiterate.  If a full investigation (remind me why the FBI would investigate this non-Federal issue) was important to the Dems they would have asked for one when they first received the allegations, i.e. months ago.  They decided to play politics with it instead and it's apparently not going to work out for them.

Then after the THIRD allegation a bit of a change of heart....

(09-26-2018, 09:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I just got a chance to read them, these new allegations are insane!  They're as far beyond what I thought would be reported as possible.  I do agree there has to be an investigation now, but I just don't see how multiple FBI background checks could miss something this big.

I will add this, if Kavanaugh is found to have done these things his career is over entirely and deservedly so.  If any of his accusers are found to be lying, or even mistaken about Kavanaugh's, they need to pay a similar price.

(09-27-2018, 11:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: C'mon dude, if allegations against you that will destroy your life are made and you're confronted by a hostile person who wants to believe it you have to keep a cool head or you'll look even more guiltier.


Seriously, I've interviewed thousands of people during investigations, Kavanaugh's reactions were not that of a person who is guilty.  He may be guilty and be a great actor, but anyone couching his anger as proof of his guilt hasn't got a clue what they're talking about.

You didn't want an investigation and you didn't see a need for one because it was a long time ago, you don't think they can prove it and you believe he is innocent because, well, you.  

And you're not the only one.

You don't have to own that.  But don't tell me I'm "making stuff up".

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 10:12 AM)fredtoast Wrote: She never broke nthe law.  She never committed a crime.  Intent is required to break the law or commit a crime.

We have been over this a hundred times.  Your pertisan blinders keep you from acknowledging the truth.

Well tell Matt and his "partisan blinders".

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 07:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not going to deny that Feinstein sat on it for political reasons. Everything that has been done on both sides of this has been done with a political calculus. What I find interesting is that there are people discussing a presumption of innocence with regards to Kavanaugh, yet they abandon that with this situation. We have information that Ford didn't want this shared and Feinstein was waiting for Ford's ok to do so. Yet people are all about assigning nefarious intent to the actions she took. At the same time, there are those unwilling to see the partisan moves on the left and are assigning them to the right.

Again, I don't doubt the political motives behind Feinstein's actions, but this double standard is something I have been finding interesting. There are a ton of red flags with regards to Kavanaugh based on his testimony and his actions in front of the committee. Neither side comes out clean from this in any way because of the way they handled it all.

I cannot say with any certainty that Feinstein released it; what I have blamed Feinstein for is sitting on the information instead of turning it over to the FBI for a confidential investigation immediately. As I said she is not clergy. If she had knowledge of a crime, she had an obligation to share it with the authorities.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 10:51 AM)jj22 Wrote: Trump supporters spending the morning celebrating the FBI's finding of no corroborating evidence.... Even though the WH admittedly didn't let the FBI interview any of Ford's collaborating witnesses. Got to interview corroborating witnesses in order to find corroborating evidence. #commonsensepolitics

If they want to be proud of that then so be it. Personally if I was innocent, I would have wanted all that doubt removed, but Republicans seem more interested in trolling with this line, then justice for either Kav or Ford. Their tactic might have worked to get him in, but it didn't do any favors for him in the history books.

Trump supporters think Dems were trying to end Kav when in reality they were the only ones trying to clear him. Republicans acted guilty and left Kav's legacy up to debate, division and skepticism. Their tactic failed him, and if he is innocent, that is a shame.

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.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2018, 10:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: A child who was alone with her claims she was sexually assaulted.  The only evidence is the childs statement.

No I would not fire my babysitter for this. Would you try to light her on fire is a child said she was a witch?