Burgold

Anthony Kennedy announces intention to retire from SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

Just now, Hersh said:

 

 

So we haven't heard about this for 2 months cause they apparently thought it happened so long ago and didn't send it to the FBI until being pushed further on it cause the Dems were playing politics. 

 

You two should PM to get your story straight and decide how best to complain about this. 

Is the New Yorker wrong?  Did Feinstein send this to the FBI when she got it  in July and both her and the FBI are lying now claiming she only sent it to them on Wed this week?  

 

Or is it just a question of her motives behind her actions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Hersh said:

So some of you are ****ing that the Democrats didn't come out and make accusations and instead gave it to the authorities to investigate? Interesting. 

my issue is why wasnt it sent sooner to the FBI?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

And those second hand accounts sure sound like attempted rape to me.

Sure, and it sure sounds like the Duke lacrosse team raped a girl at an off campus party...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Is the New Yorker wrong?  Did Feinstein send this to the FBI when she got it  in July and both her and the FBI are lying now claiming she only sent it to them on Wed this week?  

 

Or is it just a question of her motives behind her actions?

 

If her motive is trying to sink Kavanaugh, we would have found out about this a lot sooner.  

12 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

my issue is why wasnt it sent sooner to the FBI?

 

That's the most legit issue with what happened. I don't understand the complaints from the right. Extremely defensive 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

If her motive is trying to sink Kavanaugh, we would have found out about this a lot sooner.  

 

That's the most legit issue with what happened. I don't understand the complaints from the right. Extremely defensive 

Not necessarily.  If she didn’t believe the allegation, it would make sense to not do anything about it at the time hoping something else would derail him.  Seeing that nothing else has, this is the “hail Mary”.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Not necessarily.  If she didn’t believe the allegation, it would make sense to not do anything about it at the time hoping something else would derail him.  Seeing that nothing else has, this is the “hail Mary”.  

DiFi is hella dumb then. None of this makes her look good. Sitting on it for months is not good politically. Her Hail Mary is for her to take a lot of **** from voters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Sure, and it sure sounds like the Duke lacrosse team raped a girl at an off campus party...

There should be an investigation. I'm sure we can figure a way to address issues like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the concern from the right, understandably, is timing.  Maybe she held it for good reasons.  Maybe it's coincidence that this all came to a head right at this moment.  Maybe Dianne didn't intend for this to blow up like this.  But it is.  And it looks very politically timed.

 

That being said, the entire American right is owed a massive sucker punch to the teeth for what they pulled on Garland, so frankly I don't feel too bad.  If Brett truly sinks for this, we'll call it even.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

I think the concern from the right, understandably, is timing.  Maybe she held it for good reasons.  Maybe it's coincidence that this all came to a head right at this moment.  Maybe Dianne didn't intend for this to blow up like this.  But it is.  And it looks very politically timed.

 

That being said, the entire American right is owed a massive sucker punch to the teeth for what they pulled on Garland, so frankly I don't feel too bad.  If Brett truly sinks for this, we'll call it even.

Yeah, the idea that the right has any right to decry "dirty politics" is kind of hysterical.

 

Besides, with Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, Trump Jr. Gates, etc.  I think the Republicans have kind of lost the benefit of the doubt on any moral issue whatsoever. They are the party of crooks, traitors, and the wretched.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

That’s the thing.  There is no really good explanation for the way she handled it. 

 

Sure there is

She didn't see any good from releasing it ,but someone else forced her hand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

 

That being said, the entire American right is owed a massive sucker punch to the teeth for what they pulled on Garland, so frankly I don't feel too bad.  If Brett truly sinks for this, we'll call it even.

 

what, ya'll don't like your own rules? :ols: thanks Joe

Much better not to toy with Garland and be upfront.

 

even will be when the Dems are no more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter from the 65 women is disturbing. Any reason why people sexually assaulted don’t come forward all the time. No saying Kav is guilty but it’s ****ty to see a letter like this as a response. 

2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

what, ya'll don't like your own rules? :ols: thanks Joe

Much better not to toy with Garland and be upfront.

 

even will be when the Dems are no more.

 

 

Wow, TWA making things up. 

 

 

Some things never change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agan, if the woman doesn't want to come forward and address this, how is the Senate or the FBI supposed to consider this at all?  It's not like there's any other evidence to go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hersh said:

The letter from the 65 women is disturbing. Any reason why people sexually assaulted don’t come forward all the time. No saying Kav is guilty but it’s ****ty to see a letter like this as a response. 

 

Sure, but it’s also ****ty proving a negative. 

 

Do we we have any actual evidence he did this? We don’t even have an accuser?

 

Interesting you don’t find that ****ty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Sure, but it’s also ****ty proving a negative. 

 

Do we we have any actual evidence he did this? We don’t even have an accuser?

 

Interesting you don’t find that ****ty. 

 

The Democrat gave it to the FBI to look into. I find that to be what should've happened right away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, do people wonder why a woman wouldnt come forward? Anyone remember a lady named Anita Hill? How did that questioning go? Think that is unusual?

 

As for FBI, what crime bas been comitted whose statute of limitations has not passed?  What should they investigate?

 

The question is whether the standard for being sworn into a life time term on the Supreme Court should require more than just "not convicted."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

The Democrat gave it to the FBI to look into. I find that to be what should've happened right away. 

 

So the question is why didn’t she?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

 

So the question is why didn’t she?

 

It's a fair question that she should answer. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gbear said:

Gee, do people wonder why a woman wouldnt come forward? Anyone remember a lady named Anita Hill? How did that questioning go? Think that is unusual?

 

As for FBI, what crime bas been comitted whose statute of limitations has not passed?  What should they investigate?

 

The question is whether the standard for being sworn into a life time term on the Supreme Court should require more than just "not convicted."

I can totally understand why she wouldn't come forward.  And I don't think an allegation has to be proven to a level of criminal conviction for it to be considered by the Senate.  But without any other corroborating evidence to go on, I don't see how the Senate can consider it.  There's gotta be something more than an anonymous allegation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now