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

[RedskinsFan44]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

Im referring to how one would salvage their reputation in a case like this (an accusation with no evidence either way)

 

when we we talk about any other type of case/issue else majority of you would ridicule anyone for assuming guilt. 

 

 

I get that, and he is not in any legal peril as far as I can tell. Yes it is a political beast and ugly as all hell. As I have said I don't know who is telling the truth, and the truth may be somewhere in between. But while Kavanaugh should be presumed innocent I think Ford should be heard considering she apparently knew him at the time and has been seeing a therapist for a long time about being sexually assaulted. Again, to me the most incriminating thing is the defense being mounted, particularly Whelan's bizarre who-dunit.

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

Kiss of death right there 

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

I think Ford should be heard

 

Absolutely. For no reason other than she’s made a serious allegation.  She deserves to be heard. 

 

Any other opinion I’ve offered is based on media reports which is always risky to do. And I believe the extent of my opinion has been “... there so no evidence here...” and that of the three people she claims were there not a single one has been able to corroborate any part of the story. 

 

I agree with you about the defense being incriminating. I said the other day I thought it was weird someone could claim to not be somewhere to commit a crime when no one said where the crime was committed. 

 

BK’s response to date to all of this doesn’t pass the smell test. 

 

But neither does Ford’s story. 

 

If I could twist a way that makes both of them liars, that’s where I’d put my money right now. Im not joking. I absolutely would. But that’s because there’s something wrong with me. 

Edited September 21, 2018 by tshile

[Dan T.]

Supposing that Brett Kavanaugh said, when this allegation first came out, "i do vaguely recall that incident 36 years ago.  I made a clumsy, teen-aged pass at a girl at a party and got too aggressive. It became evident she wasn't willing and left. I am sorry about that incident from so long ago and I am sorry that she must carry that bad memory with her. I apologize to her.   But that moment from my youth does not reflect who I am as an adult nor how I view women."

 

Does he get confirmed?

[Hersh]

10 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

Supposing that Brett Kavanaugh said, when this allegation first came out, "i do vaguely recall that incident 36 years ago.  I made a clumsy, teen-aged pass at a girl at a party and got too aggressive. It became evident she wasn't willing and left. I am sorry about that incident from so long ago and I am sorry that she must carry that bad memory with her. I apologize to her.   But that moment from my youth does not reflect who I am as an adult nor how I view women."

 

Does he get confirmed?

 

No. 

[Jumbo]

28 minutes ago, twa said:

Jumbo

They have done something similar,except the reopening the FBI investigation Hill's complaint had initiated earlier.....kind of hard to open any kind of one in advance w/o any cooperation.

 

i don't want to extend the fbi angle much, other items matter more imo, and there are other ways to investigate for a week or two, but here to the best of my understanding, is what i thought before, what i have heard fbi guys i done seen on the tv set say,  and the input of an actual fbi agent not on tv:

 

anytime a credible issue  suggests additional follow-up in such a confirmation matter, if the majority comm leader with a majority approval of the comm ASKs them to do a follow up, the fbi would, even though it may end up being a very brief effort before they decide "nothing burger".

 

now to be fair, there is so much nuance and manipulation (politics) to how these things can be played even with rules of process, you always have the cases that seem to not follow that 'normal process', so i'd allow for that (politics)...and if this is all wrong, somone clue me in with a credible---by my standards---source and i'll be happy to lessen my ignorance

[PeterMP]

56 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

Blasey Ford has stated that she knew socially both Brett Kavanaugh and the classmate falsely accused as the real attacker by conservative activist Ed Whelan, and that there was "zero chance" she would have confused them.

Okay, and the flip side of that is he's said he's innocent.  And if somebody accused me of something that I was sure I was innocent of rather than call them an out and out liar, I'd probably go with maybe they got me mixed up with somebody else.

 

I don't see that he's suggested that maybe she confused him with somebody else as good evidence that he's guilty.  I suspect it is a natural instinct of somebody that knows/believes they are innocent.  (which was my initial point- I strongly suspect that when told that they've done something wrong that even innocent people frequently first instinct is to go with- it must have been somebody else.  Especially in a case where the details are so vague it isn't actually possible to prove your innocence.  It isn't like he can provide an alibi).

 

I also don't see that she's "sure" she's got the right person as any better evidence that she's right/telling the truth than the fact that she came forward to start with.  According to the husband, she named him years ago.  That ID is now 100% in her mind for sure.

Edited September 21, 2018 by PeterMP

[The Evil Genius]

18 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

Supposing that Brett Kavanaugh said, when this allegation first came out, "i do vaguely recall that incident 36 years ago.  I made a clumsy, teen-aged pass at a girl at a party and got too aggressive. It became evident she wasn't willing and left. I am sorry about that incident from so long ago and I am sorry that she must carry that bad memory with her. I apologize to her.   But that moment from my youth does not reflect who I am as an adult nor how I view women."

 

Does he get confirmed?

 

As it was described, it wasn't clumsy.

 

The line between a clumsy pass and forcing a girl into a room, turning up the music so no one would hear, and covering her mouth so she doesn't scream is a mile wide (to me).

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 hours ago, Llevron said:

I remember a house party that I threw myself, at my house, where there ended up being the most beautiful lesbian orgy ON MY BED that I was not allowed to take part in cause they are stingy as **** apparently - that I cant remember the date or time of.

Sucker... The trick is to feign disinterest. Tell them that you've given up lesbian orgies for lent, then it's on!!

 

edit: I ****ing LOVE beautiful lesbian orgies btw. I mean really, there's not much in this world that's more beautiful than multiple gorgeous women going at it like sea otters. Dude's are rank.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Dan T.]

6 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Sucker... The trick is to feign disinterest. Tell them that you've given up lesbian orgies for lent, then it's on!!

 

edit: I ****ing LOVE beautiful lesbian orgies btw. I mean really, there's not much in this world that's more beautiful than multiple gorgeous women going at it like sea otters. Dude's are rank.

 

I'm picturing Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and RBG.  In robes.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 minute ago, Dan T. said:

I'm picturing Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and RBG.  In robes.

Oh, baby. 

[Llevron]

6 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

I'm picturing Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and RBG.  In robes.

 

No kink shaming but I really wanna know why it feels like the robes themselves just add something for you lol

 

14 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Sucker... The trick is to feign disinterest. Tell them that you've given up lesbian orgies for lent, then it's on!!

 

edit: I ****ing LOVE beautiful lesbian orgies btw. I mean really, there's not much in this world that's more beautiful than multiple gorgeous women going at it like sea otters. Dude's are rank.

 

You and I are more alike than I care to admit out loud lol

Edited September 21, 2018 by Llevron

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

Ok

[Dan T.]

24 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Sucker... The trick is to feign disinterest. Tell them that you've given up lesbian orgies for lent, then it's on!!

 

edit: I ****ing LOVE beautiful lesbian orgies btw. I mean really, there's not much in this world that's more beautiful than multiple gorgeous women going at it like sea otters. Dude's are rank.

 

BTW you do realize that, with this post, you have permanently disqualified yourself from a seat on the Supreme Court.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

50 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

Supposing that Brett Kavanaugh said, when this allegation first came out, "i do vaguely recall that incident 36 years ago.  I made a clumsy, teen-aged pass at a girl at a party and got too aggressive. It became evident she wasn't willing and left. I am sorry about that incident from so long ago and I am sorry that she must carry that bad memory with her. I apologize to her.   But that moment from my youth does not reflect who I am as an adult nor how I view women."

 

Does he get confirmed?

He could grope her in the middle of the hearing and still get confirmed.  This is just a sideshow.  

[RedskinsFan44]

l

36 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Okay, and the flip side of that is he's said he's innocent.  And if somebody accused me of something that I was sure I was innocent of rather than call them an out and out liar, I'd probably go with maybe they got me mixed up with somebody else.

 

I don't see that he's suggested that maybe she confused him with somebody else as good evidence that he's guilty.  I suspect it is a natural instinct of somebody that knows/believes they are innocent.  (which was my initial point- I strongly suspect that when told that they've done something wrong that even innocent people frequently first instinct is to go with- it must have been somebody else.  Especially in a case where the details are so vague it isn't actually possible to prove your innocence.  It isn't like he can provide an alibi).

 

I also don't see that she's "sure" she's got the right person as any better evidence that she's right/telling the truth than the fact that she came forward to start with.  According to the husband, she named him years ago.  That ID is now 100% in her mind for sure.

They went way beyond "she must have mistaken me for somebody else". Something about lies being too elaborate.

[Burgold]

3 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

BTW you do realize that, with this post, you have permanently disqualified yourself from a seat on the Supreme Court.

Only if he is a Democrat. If he's a Republican he could be in favor of orgies involving children and the GOP would still back him. See Roger Moore, Donald Trump, and Kavanaugh.

 

Their morality is entirely identity based.

[Dan T.]

From Twitter...

Conservative activist Ed Whelan explains his alternative suspect theory:

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

34 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

They went way beyond "she must have mistaken me for somebody else". Something about lies being too elaborate.

 

I've used singular nouns -me and he.  You've used a plural- they.  There is no doubt that people that have no real know idea if Kavanaugh is guilty or not are weighing in on matters, but that has 0 relevance to his actual guilt or innocence.

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by PeterMP

[RedskinsFan44]

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I've used singular nouns -me and he.  You've used a plural- they.  There is no doubt that people that have no real know idea if Kavanaugh is guilty or not are weighing in on matters, but that has 0 relevance to his actual guilt or innocence.

 

At this point I think Kavanaugh is acting as a member of a team. He has spent four days at the White House presumably strategizing for the hearings. Whelan's story is likely part of the spin coming out of that effort. Granted I could be wrong about that, but that's what it looks like to me. Where did Whelan get all of his information about Kavanaugh's friends from HS? Did Kavanaugh himself say she may have mistaken him for someone else? If so I haven't found it in a cursory search.

 

add: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/17/kavanaugh-statement-allegations-completely-false-nr-vpx.cnn

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by RedskinsFan44

[PeterMP]

31 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

At this point I think Kavanaugh is acting as a member of a team. He has spent four days at the White House presumably strategizing for the hearings. Whelan's story is likely part of the spin coming out of that effort. Granted I could be wrong about that, but that's what it looks like to me. Where did Whelan get all of his information about Kavanaugh's friends from HS? Did Kavanaugh himself say she may have mistaken him for someone else? If so I haven't found it in a cursory search.

 

Kavanaugh himself offered at some point in time that it might be a case of mistaken identity, which to me seems pretty natural.

 

It seems like most of the relevant information was in the letter to Feinstein, which has clearly been leaked to multiple sources.  The only real question is where did he get the name and address of the person that he said was the possible perpetrator and his name is actually on the list of alumni supporting Kavanaugh so something that could at least have been found. 

 

The Post knew who the other people were to contact them.

 

In your mind, it is reasonable as a solution to this issue, the WH and Kavanaugh came up with a scheme where somebody would point to a particular other person, opening themselves to a libel threat, and allowing her to publicly debunk it BEFORE the hearing?  What did they really gain here?  They've gained nothing, but opened themselves up to more calls for investigation (how does Whalen know what he knows?), a possible libel suit, and allowing her to go on record again as being sure it was Kavanaugh.  One of the last things you want as a lawyer is to give the victim another chance to say, no, I'm sure it was your client. You have to assume "they" are pretty inept.  They're incredibly successful, and yet incredibly stupid.

 

(Then you get into theories opposite as yours, but still out there ideas- Mark Judge was at the party, Ford is wrong in her identification, Judge knows she's wrong, and pointed Whelan in the right direction to get it out there.  Which actually make a little more sense.  At least in that case, Whalen isn't opening himself up to an easy libel suit.)

Edited September 21, 2018 by PeterMP

[visionary]

Wow.

 

 

 

[NoCalMike]

1 hour ago, Dan T. said:

 

 

Does he get confirmed?

 

That is a good question, and it has been posed on news talk shows plenty of times, the problem is we are beyond that point now. The denials(s) have come and been re-iterated, so I think it is too late to now go back and say "oh yeah, my bad, oops"

 

Also, I love the "case of mistaken identity" defense. 

 

"I didn't do it, but a lot of the guys I ran with in those days most likely could have been the one, hell any of them really?"

Edited September 21, 2018 by NoCalMike

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, Dan T. said:

BTW you do realize that, with this post, you have permanently disqualified yourself from a seat on the Supreme Court.

That's fine. I have presidential aspirations.