SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[Fresh8686]

6 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

That's my point. Mueller has been tight lipped, and all the stuff on the internet is speculation. So saying to anyone you are listening to the wrong source is foolish. Saying that Donald Trump is definitively under criminal investigation is foolish. We all think he is the target of a criminal investigation. All signs point that he should be the target of a criminal investigation. But none of us know he is the source. So saying he is illegitimate or that he shouldn't be allowed to nominate people? 

 

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

11 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

This is appalling. I have long given up hope for the future of this country and have basically decided against bringing kids into this world. My belief is only reaffirmed each day when I see the lack of character, empathy, and human decency displayed by supposed leadership.

Smart man. The country is going to hell plus kids are a pain in the ass anyway. They’ll never bring you as much enjoyment as a life of bachelorhood filled with naps, weed, and the Matrix on blu-ray.

[Fresh8686]

5 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Because I wait for details?  And dont assign the crimes of another to this accusation for a political point?

 

I have no idea how to relate the crime committed in that story to empathy for Ford.  None.  They have no connection whatsoever.

 

 

Does the below look like you're waiting for details? Is this your idea of impartiality? Can you really read your own words below and try to tell us with a straight face that you aren't putting a political slant to your assumptions?

 

5 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

I have no idea why people are so hung up on the FBI.  That's an obvious red herring.  Ford, her atty, and the left KNOW that the FBI isnt going to be involved, and that's why they are demanding it.  They want to be able to claim they wanted to help but couldnt because someone else prevented them from doing so.

 

There is nothing stopping Ford from walking into the police station and filing a police report.  Nothing at all.

 

4 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

There is none on sexual assault crimes.

 

The FBI has vetted him multiple times already.

Actually quite a few states have a statute of limitations of sexual assault crimes. Especially the southern states.

 

4 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

I have the view that everyone in politics has an agenda.  And they are all willing to do whatever it takes to meet that agenda.  Which is why I think it's very plausible that she's withholding info on purpose.  I can also believe that she believes what she is saying.  And is just wrong with her memories.  And she's withholding info that would contradict those memories.  I dont believe she wants an FBI investigation.  She just wants to claim that she wants one knowing full well it wont happen.  But a Police one would.  And that would present evidence she doesnt want (whether conscientiously or not) coming out.

Where is you're evidence that points to her getting her memories wrong? What corroboration do you have for this assumption that she is withholding info that would would contradict those memories?

 

If you have no evidence and this is just your bias, why do you have such a ****ty bias that automatically paints the woman in this situation as being either corrupt/untrustworthy or incapable of giving a reliable account of these events? She has a phd after all, which points to some modicum of faculty to speak and recount experiences don't you think?

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[Kilmer17]

6 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

Does the below look like you're waiting for details? Is this your idea of impartiality? Can you really read your own words below and try to tell us with a straight face that you aren't putting a political slant to your assumptions?

 

 

Actually quite a few states have a statute of limitations of sexual assault crimes. Especially the southern states.

 

Where is you're evidence that points to her getting her memories wrong? What corroboration do you have for this assumption that she is withholding info that would would contradict those memories?

 

If you have no evidence and this is just your bias, why do you have such a ****ty bias that automatically paints the woman in this situation as being either corrupt/untrustworthy or incapable of giving a reliable account of these events? She has a phd after all, which points to some modicum of faculty to speak and recount experiences don't you think?

 

Wouldn’t BK have the same modicum of faculty?

[visionary]

This is interesting, but I really don't like how this and looking into witnesses is all being handled by the Republican leadership.  It makes me very uncomfortable.  

Edited September 20, 2018 by visionary

[tshile]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

What are you looking for? 

Edited 1 hour ago by visi

 

Evidence

2 hours ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

I would guess the strongest thing Ford has going for her is that she has scene a therapist for years about the purported incident. Apparently she never named the person who assaulted her to her therapist. At least that is my understanding.

 

Thats not evidence. That’s her telling someone else the same thing she’s telling us. It’s hearsay is it not?

 

i agree that’s the strongest thing she has going for her. That’s the problem

Edited September 20, 2018 by tshile

[twa]

3 hours ago, Hersh said:

 

Kagan had about 1,600 documents withheld by National Archives. Kavanaugh is at 100,000+ withheld by Executive Privilege  

 

Is that something you consider to be the same thing?

 

ALL of Kagan's SG documents were withheld

[Popeman38]

57 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

 

 

You do realize that your link includes “sources familiar with the situation” and “sources familiar with the matter” but not sources from the Special Counsel’s office. So again, passing on information 2nd and 3rd hand. The Special Counsel’s office has not been a source of ANY news related to any part of the investigation, outside of court appearances. There are “sources familiar with the situation” that state unequivocally that donald Teump is not the target of ANY criminal investigation. But those sources are dismissed because they don’t fit a narrative. Again, if the source isn’t from inside the Mueller team, it is speculation - with the noted exception of what actually happens in the courtroom or court filings. 

[Kilmer17]

14 minutes ago, twa said:

 

ALL of Kagan's SG documents were withheld

But that’s a different percentage. And that’s whats apparently important. 

[Kilmer17]

Something brilliant just said on hardball by Cynthia somebody.  

 

No matter what this is going to be investigated.  Either by the fbi or someone winning a Pulitzer. 

 

If you were BK.  You either know for certain that she’s wrong (note I’m not saying she’s lying) or you’re certain that she can’t prove it. 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Fresh8686 said:

Where is you're evidence that points to her getting her memories wrong?

 

Thats not how it’s supposed to work, you’re supposed to give evidence to prove the accusation.  Not the other way around. Here’s a reason for that. 

 

That said, of the three people she claims was there one is not accused of doing anything wrong and he says he wasn’t there (the other two’s statements are irrelevant in this context as they’re accused of wrongdoing)

 

 

[RedskinsFan44]

47 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Evidence

 

Thats not evidence. That’s her telling someone else the same thing she’s telling us. It’s hearsay is it not?

 

i agree that’s the strongest thing she has going for her. That’s the problem

Right, she told the same story years ago to someone else for no political motivation. If she had named Kavanaugh he would be in deep doo doo right now. Again, I don't know which one is telling the truth, but it feels like most people think they do for no real good reason. If he did it and she can't prove it because he lied about it does that make it ok for him to be seated on the SC? It's a mess, and getting worse.

[visionary]

53 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Evidence

 

Thats not evidence. That’s her telling someone else the same thing she’s telling us. It’s hearsay is it not?

 

i agree that’s the strongest thing she has going for her. That’s the problem

What is evidence in this?   I feel like people are wanting something impossible.  

 

Friends said she told them about being assaulted and that she was afraid to be trapped in a room ever since and the friends mentioned some things that seem to back the latter part up.  She herself has mentioned much of what she remembers happening.  

Edited September 20, 2018 by visionary

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

If he did it and she can't prove it because he lied about it does that make it ok for him to be seated on the SC?

 

I don’t know what means... does it make it ok... no.... but you can’t punish someone for an accusation with no evidence to back it up. Suggesting otherwise is absurd. 

1 minute ago, visionary said:

What is evidence in this?   I feel like people are wanting something impossible.  

 

You don’t know what evidence is?

 

also - yeah, you’re starting to get it. I think it probably is impossible. Unless she has a dress she’s waiting to show everyone. 

[visionary]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I don’t know what means... does it make it ok... no.... but you can’t punish someone for an accusation with no evidence to back it up. Suggesting otherwise is absurd. 

 

You don’t know what evidence is?

 

also - yeah, you’re starting to get it. I think it probably is impossible. Unless she has a dress she’s waiting to show everyone. 

Rape cases don't require the same sort of evidence.  And victims' memories are often selective.

Edited September 20, 2018 by visionary

[twa]

1 minute ago, visionary said:

Rape cases don't require the same sort of evidence.  

 

they do require reporting it to the police....to begin with

[tshile]

3 hours ago, visionary said:

 

I'm also curious why statements from Ford's friends about her fear of being trapped in a room have received so little discussion.  

 

Something that could make testifying useful. 

 

Assuming the gop isn’t successful in subverting the entire thing and making it a clown show

8 minutes ago, visionary said:

Rape cases don't require the same sort of evidence.  And victims' memories are often selective.

 

Well, carry on convicting someone with a simple statement then. Hopefully you’ll at least evenly apply your bs sense of evaluating things. 

 

 

[gbear]

Do you wonder why Comey took notes? I know as a manager, I am told to document actions and conversations because it makes my version told years later more believable than just my memory in a he said he or she said situation.

 

So I now submit that is why it is relevant that she told others she hax been assaulted. It is why it is relevant that she seems to have some ongoing issues consistant with an assault survivor. For those saying no evidence, I say you are missing what is being presented to you because you require a semen stained dress. If you think that is the only way a case can be made, rape reporting will become even less frequent after rapes because people like you on a jury will never believe. Whether she has enough evidence or enough can be found is a different question, but I am sick of hearing there is no evidence.

 

For what little it is worth, my friend wont sit to eat at a restaurant with her back to the door. So the need for an exit in every room isn't bazaar.

Edited September 20, 2018 by gbear

[Burgold]

7 minutes ago, twa said:

 

they do require reporting it to the police....to begin with

We all know the history of underreporting when it comes to rape and sexual assault. Again, do you want all the Catholic priests whose vast history of sexual molestation to go unpunished because their despicable acts weren't reported in real time? We know that for girls and women too the number of cases reported are minute compared to the number of rapes committed.

 

If Kavanaugh is innocent his name should be cleared. If he was involved in what he is being accused of... whether drunk or not... whether a teenage boy or not... it should be taken damn seriously. Rape isn't horseplay. Grabbing random women by the _________ isn't locker room talk.

[Bozo the kKklown]

9 minutes ago, gbear said:

For those saying no evidence, I say you are missing what is being presented to you because you require a semen stained dress.

You are giving some people the benefit of a doubt they do not deserve.

[Kilmer17]

Here’s a good question for Ford. 

 

How ie can you be so sure it was BK but not able to even remember the year it allegedly occurred?

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

Thread on Kavanugh’s finances

Edited September 21, 2018 by BenningRoadSkin

[Kilmer17]

Just now, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

Thread eats on Kavanugh’s finances

Why didn’t anyone ask him this in the hearing?   I too think this is potentially important.