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

[skinsmarydu]

Turtle man is a complete liar. 

[NoCalMike]

Hasn't Kavanaugh been having meetings at the Whitehouse regularly since the allegation(s) broke?  I am assuming he is being assured every step of the way that he is being nominated as long as any further "bombshells" don't happen.  Probably has Kavanaugh feeling pretty confident.

[TheGreatBuzz]

17 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Cool. Can we make this your signature if it turns out that these allegations are credible?

Who decides credible?  But yes, I would consider some form of sig bet.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

8 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

This is not a political game for a lot of us. This is a ****ed up power dynamic we want to see rooted out that has destroyed the lives of many. 

 

Can you get that? Can you at least try for one moment to consider that we are reacting to this in good faith and not political gamesmanship? 

 

I hear what you are saying, but it isn’t just that she waited 30 years to come forward.  Time is an issue but if it takes you 30 years to come foward, it’s up to you.

 

however, She chose to make it a political game when she decided to wait to come foward after he was nominated.

[Llevron]

5 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

This will all come out eventually.  If he did it and lies about it now, he will be exposed and face impeachment.  A far worse outcome than simply stepping aside.  

 

Agree. Which is why im not too hung up on it currently. I just have fun going back and forth with you guys generally for whatever reason. 

 

He will get confirmed most probably. Dems should win the house if people vote. Dems will investigate, and if there is any proof impeach him. At least thats what I think will happen. Its the best course of action IMO at this point. Anything other than a full investigation with open facts will lead to one side or another claming political games were played and no one will be happy with the resolution. Which is what makes me suspicious of the repubs - why knowing this would they avoid the investigation at all costs if they were acting in good faith? 

 

Dunno. In the end only one side is going to be happy anyway. Its a shame cause we really all cannot be on the same side anymore. And we should be. 

Edited September 24, 2018 by Llevron

[Kilmer17]

Just now, Fresh8686 said:

 

Show me the quote of this initial statement, because Yoire track record so far is not looking good. 

 

Second, the way it is described and currently stands for dr Ford is qualifiiably attempted rape. Do you dispute that?

I accept that I dont know the legal definition.  A quick look back through this thread will show the reaction to the initial claims.  A few people asking what "sexual misconduct" meant.

[Popeman38]

1 hour ago, Fresh8686 said:

The way you keep twisting information is really ****ing pissing me off.

Others didn't deny it, they said they couldn't remember the party. BIG ****ing difference.

Bring the quote where Ramirez says she didn't see who did what, because if you can't then you're just talking out of your ass.

Again there are people who agree, stop ****ing misrepresenting this ****.

 

Do you know how ****ing infuriating it is to see you twisting information for alleged sexual assault when people on here have wives and family and friends who are victims of rape and gas-lighting?

Stop that **** man. Get your facts straight and either post with direct quotes or don't post at all.

 

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

Sort of like the people that have taken Fords initial claim and have morphed into "attempted rape"?  Maddening for you Im sure.

 

Her statement only identifies BK as being there and seeing his "hips coming forward like when you pull up your pants"  She also admits that there are significant gaps in her memories.  Nobody has come forward to even say they were at this party.  Only people claiming to have heard about it. 

 

1 hour ago, Fresh8686 said:

Dude, you're ****ing wrong again.

Get your victims straight. That's Ramirez not Dr. Ford.

 

7 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

No, you’re making incorrect assumptions about my post. Go back and reread. 

 

And again his first post about dr Ford is wrong to anyone who is reasonable and intellectually honest about the allegations she is bringing forward. Her allegations pass the bar for being termed as attempted rape. 

I linked them all, and bolded the portions that read to me like they are in response to one another.

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Agree. Which is why im not too hung up on it currently. I just have fun going back and forth with you guys generally for whatever reason. 

 

He will get confirmed most probably. Dems should win the house if people vote. Dems will investigate, and if there is any proof impeach him. At least thats what I think will happen. Its the best course of action IMO at this point. Anything other than a full investigation with open facts will lead to one side or another claming political games were played and no one will be happy with the resolution. Which is what makes me suspicious of the repubs - why knowing this would they avoid the investigation at all costs if they were acting in good faith? 

 

Dunno. In the end only one side is going to be happy anyway. Its a shame cause we really all cannot be on the same side anymore. And we should be. 

I enjoy the debates as well.  Initially I looked at DiFi's release as BS.  But once Ford came forward, I think she's credible.  Meaning I think she believes what she is saying.  The problem is that she might be wrong about the facts and details.

 

It's still too early to draw such a cojnclusion from Ramirez' accusation.

[skinsmarydu]

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I hear what you are saying, but it isn’t just that she waited 30 years to come forward.  Time is an issue but if it takes you 30 years to come foward, it’s up to you.

 

however, She chose to make it a political game when she decided to wait to come foward after he was nominated.

He could go on living a good (**** that...a ****in EXTRAORDINARY life) .....

 

as long as no one knew. 

 

She's okay too...as long as she has multiple exits. 

 

What about this isn't right? You only get one answer. 

 

 

[Hersh]

52 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Kavanaugh himself is doing what you should do if you are innocent. Emphatic denials and refusing to go away.

 

Yes, he’s acting just like Trump and we know Trump is definitely innocent. ?

[NoCalMike]

9 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Yes, he’s acting just like Trump and we know Trump is definitely innocent. ?

 

Only the greatest people!

[Dan T.]

Here’s a summary of Maryland’s statutes on rape and sexual assault, with links to the statutes:

 

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/maryland-law/maryland-rape-and-sexual-assault-laws.html

 

The accusations from Ford seem to fall into the category of 3rd Degree Sexual Offense.  Though I would welcome a lawyer’s opinion on that. 

Edited September 24, 2018 by Dan T.

[Fresh8686]

24 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

 

 

 

I linked them all, and bolded the portions that read to me like they are in response to one another.

 

Yea, I see what you mean. When I responded that Kilmer was wrong I was writing under the assumption that both of his paragraphs were referring to Dr. Ford, since he made no mention of Ramirez by name in the second paragraph. My first post that you quoted was intended to be seen as a line by line rebuttal of his previous post.



 

[Cooked Crack]

I'm sure there will be hard hitting questions

[Popeman38]

3 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Yes, he’s acting just like Trump and we know Trump is definitely innocent. ?

So we are to the point where is someone is accused, defending themselves is a bad thing?  The burden in this country, whether criminal or civil or public opinion, should never be on the accused.  The presumption shouldn't be that the accused did it, and until they can prove otherwise everything has to come to a complete halt.  The presumption shouldn't be that the accuser is lying either.  No one should fear for their safety after making an accusation.  This doesn't have to be an either or proposition. Unfortunately, the polarization of politics over the last 30 years led us to Trump. 

[Llevron]

33 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

 

I linked them all, and bolded the portions that read to me like they are in response to one another.

 

Not trying to be a dick but I remember learning in Grade school that if you use a (word - someone clean this up with the technical term I'm looking for...like adjective but I know 'her' is not an adjective) like her as Kilmer did when following a name like Ford as Kilmer did people will usually assume the her means Ford in that case. 

 

I sure as hell did. 

 

I'm not a grammar natzi just pointing out where I found the disconnect 

[Popeman38]

10 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Yea, I see what you mean. When I responded that Kilmer was wrong I was writing under the assumption that both of his paragraphs were referring to Dr. Ford, since he made no mention of Ramirez by name in the second paragraph. My first post that you quoted was intended to be seen as a line by line rebuttal of his previous post.

It's all good.  Sometimes these things move fast, and it's hard to read intent.

 

2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Not trying to be a dick but I remember learning in Grade school that if you use a (word - someone clean this up with the technical term I'm looking for...like adjective but I know 'her' is not an adjective) like her as Kilmer did when following a name like Ford as Kilmer did people will usually assume the her means Ford in that case. 

 

I sure as hell did. 

 

I'm not a grammar nazi natzi just pointing out where I found the disconnect 

Fixed that for you...

 

 

 

 

 

If this is taken seriously, I quit LOL

Edited September 24, 2018 by Popeman38

[skinsmarydu]

1 minute ago, Popeman38 said:

It's all good.  Sometimes these things move fast, and it's hard to read intent.

Tell me about it. ?

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

So we are to the point where is someone is accused, defending themselves is a bad thing?  The burden in this country, whether criminal or civil or public opinion, should never be on the accused.  The presumption shouldn't be that the accused did it, and until they can prove otherwise everything has to come to a complete halt.  The presumption shouldn't be that the accuser is lying either.  No one should fear for their safety after making an accusation.  This doesn't have to be an either or proposition. Unfortunately, the polarization of politics over the last 30 years led us to Trump. 

 

Agree on all counts. The obvious answer here is an investigation by the FBI. They can do it before the midterms and everyone gets what they want. Problem is repubs (Trump) dont want it. Can we agree here?

5 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

It's all good.  Sometimes these things move fast, and it's hard to read intent.

 

Fixed that for you...

 

 

 

 

 

If this is taken seriously, I quit LOL

 

Lol all good

[Hersh]

4 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

So we are to the point where is someone is accused, defending themselves is a bad thing?  The burden in this country, whether criminal or civil or public opinion, should never be on the accused.  The presumption shouldn't be that the accused did it, and until they can prove otherwise everything has to come to a complete halt.  The presumption shouldn't be that the accuser is lying either.  No one should fear for their safety after making an accusation.  This doesn't have to be an either or proposition. Unfortunately, the polarization of politics over the last 30 years led us to Trump. 

 

Nothing wrong with someone defending themselves. It was your claim that he’s doing exactly what someone that is innocent does. That doesn’t hold water anymore with Trump using the same tactic. 

I actually think he’s not acting innocent as there have been a clear attempt to blame someone else and now a GOP coordinated response. 

[skinsmarydu]

10 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

It's all good.  Sometimes these things move fast, and it's hard to read intent.

 

Fixed that for you...

 

 

 

 

 

If this is taken seriously, I quit LOL

You have no feelings at all. 

How can you possibly be a Redskins fan?

 

Edit, I get why. Take everything, care about nothing. You're viking.

Edited September 24, 2018 by skinsmarydu

[Fresh8686]

35 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I accept that I dont know the legal definition.  A quick look back through this thread will show the reaction to the initial claims.  A few people asking what "sexual misconduct" meant.

Here you go. Now we both know the legal definition. What do you think now? If you want you can follow the link below and check out the subsections for 1st-4th degree Sexual Offense, but in my view that hinges on whether there was intent for vaginal intercourse and if the allegations are true about him trying to get off Dr. Ford's one piece at the bikini line area, one could reasonably assume that vaginal intercourse was the intent and attempted rape is the correct category of accusation.

Article - Criminal Law

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=gcr&section=3-303&ext=html&session=2017RS&tab=subject5

Attempted First Degree Rape

§3–309.  

(a)   A person may not attempt to commit rape in the first degree.

(b)   A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding life.

First Degree Rape

§3–303.  

(a)   A person may not:

(1)   engage in vaginal intercourse with another by force, or the threat of force, without the consent of the other; and

(2)    (i)   employ or display a dangerous weapon, or a physical object that the victim reasonably believes is a dangerous weapon;

(ii)   suffocate (hand over mouth can be seen as either suffocation or quieting), strangle, disfigure, or inflict serious physical injury on the victim or another in the course of committing the crime;

(iii)   threaten, or place the victim in fear, that the victim, or an individual known to the victim, imminently will be subject to death, suffocation, strangulation, disfigurement, serious physical injury, or kidnapping;

(iv)   commit the crime while aided and abetted by another; or

(v)   commit the crime in connection with a burglary in the first, second, or third degree.

(b)   A person may not violate subsection (a) of this section while also violating § 3–503(a)(2) of this title involving a victim who is a child under the age of 16 years.

(c)   A person 18 years of age or older may not violate subsection (a) of this section involving a victim who is a child under the age of 13 years.

 

Second Degree Rape

§3–304.  

(a)   A person may not engage in vaginal intercourse with another:

(1)   by force, or the threat of force, without the consent of the other;

(2)   if the victim is a substantially cognitively impaired individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual, and the person performing the act knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a substantially cognitively impaired individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual; or

(3)   if the victim is under the age of 14 years, and the person performing the act is at least 4 years older than the victim.

(b)   A person 18 years of age or older may not violate subsection (a)(1) or (2) of this section involving a child under the age of 13 years.

[Hersh]

I’m curious now if BK still drinks. At best he’s been a terrible, misogynistic, blackout drunk in his life. I’d like to know if he still partakes and to what level.

[visionary]

 

 

[Dan T.]

18 hours ago, Hersh said:

I’m curious now if BK still drinks. At best he’s been a terrible, misogynistic, blackout drunk in his life. I’d like to know if he still partakes and to what level.

 

I know that questions about drinking are part of a Federal security background check.  The question of drinking habits is directed both to the subject and to others who know the subject.

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Dan T.