Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Deborah Ramirez? Citation needed. 

It’s the article in the thread on this page. 

 

Go read it. 

 

Edit: previous page, obviously. Well should be obvious who knows with you 

Edited by tshile
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Oh it's worse than that

I know. Was just throwing something g quick out there. 

 

Funny how people who read news and repost it around the internet all day seem to miss certain news stories 😁

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, visionary said:

Whether or not she remembers the incident seems a bit of a red herring.  The importance of it is not whether she remembers it, but that it adds to a pattern of behavior if it happened.

The guys a scum bag 

 

can still laugh at The NY Times for lacking integrity and how the whole game of “updates” and retractions works.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, visionary said:

Whether or not she remembers the incident seems a bit of a red herring.  The importance of it is not whether she remembers it, but that it adds to a pattern of behavior if it happened.

If it happened? If he murdered a busload of children that would be bad too. Is it a pattern if one dubious accusation is followed by later dubious accusations.  If I accused you of being a pedophile but had no evidence or worse sketchy evidence that is disproved and later a buddy of mine  accuses you with different sketchy evidence does this form a pattern? 

 

Well actually yes it is forming a pattern - but the pattern is on his accusers. 

24 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Has an actual retraction to the NYT story happened?

 

 

A correction has. Frankly it looks like a monetary motive on the part of the reporters - they want to sell their book.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, nonniey said:

If it happened? If he murdered a busload of children that would be bad too. Is it a pattern if one dubious accusation is followed by later dubious accusations.  If I accused you of being a pedophile but had no evidence or worse sketchy evidence that is disproved and later a buddy of mine  accuses you with different sketchy evidence does this form a pattern? 

 

Well actually yes it is forming a pattern - but the pattern is on his accusers. 

A correction has. Frankly it looks like a monetary motive on the part of the reporters - they want to sell their book.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions here based on your own ideas and inaccurate framing of the situation.

Edited by visionary
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, nonniey said:

 

A correction has. Frankly it looks like a monetary motive on the part of the reporters - they want to sell their book.

 

You sure it was a correction? Or was it an update (with additional clarifying information) to an existing article? I'd suspect it was the latter and simply put, something that happens at every major newspaper in this reporting breaking news is $s era.

Edited by The Evil Genius
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

You sure it was a correction? Or was it an update (with additional clarifying information) to an existing article? I'd suspect it was the latter and simply put, something that happens at every major newspaper in this reporting breaking news is $s era.

Is a revision a correction? Seems so.

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/09/16/us/ap-us-supreme-court-kavanaugh-times.html

Edited by nonniey
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Times is saying it’s not immediately clear why the Times left out important information?

 

Youd think the Times, if it cared, would ask itself why it did that. 

 

Edit: oh it’s the AP being posted on their website. That makes sense

Edited by tshile
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are several issues in play here.  One is the process question: Did the FBI conduct as thorough an investigation as possible under the circumstances?  I'm seeing a lot of allegations suggesting that they did not.  At the very least, they apparently did not interview all the witnesses, including one referred to them by Senator Coons' office.  It begs the question why.

 

Another question is did the NY Times do a crappy job reporting?  This seems unquestionably to be true.  How do you omit that the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and informed through third party that she has no recollection?

 

Last, but most important question seems to be did Kavanaugh lie to Congress?  I think the new information that Times omitted certainly calls that allegation into question.  But then again there are scenarios where the victim herself could not recall and still have this be true.  You could also conceivably have the event be true but Kavanaugh has no recollection and thus didn't lie to Congress.

 

I still want to see who the FBI interviewed, who they didn't interview, and explanation as to why they didn't.

 

That the NY Times fubar'd this story seems beyond question at this point though.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kavanaugh from the beginning seems like at the least a wealthy entitled douchebag that grew up in an environment that tells young men the world is theirs to do with it what they please.  At worst he attempted to rape a woman.  I'll admit I don't have enough info to make a clear judgement on the Ford accusations, however there is enough smoke in the guy's past that Trump probably should have moved onto to another candidate that would have been just as conservative and self-serving of Trump's bidding as the next guy, but because Trump is Trump, he stuck with Kavanaugh.   You don't have to be a criminal to be unfit for a seat on the Supreme Court. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bearrock said:

Another question is did the NY Times do a crappy job reporting?  This seems unquestionably to be true.  How do you omit that the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and informed through third party that she has no recollection?

This was a bad job by the NYT on this.  But I think we should be careful not to make too much of this claim, considering the situation involved.  It's also possible she doesn't want the attention or harassment this might bring on her and it's very common for victims to minimize what happened in their mind so as to not have to deal with it.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by visionary
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

Deborah Ramirez? Citation needed. Was the friend at the party?

 

It's a different woman than Deobrah Ramirez and the Times never stated that she is the one making the allegations.

 

The only thing the Times left out was that the other woman doesn't have a recollection of the event, but several others who were at the party remember it.

 

The initial story that Debbie Ramirez has additional people backing her story and that several people recall a similar incident with a different woman at a different party hasn't changed.

 

A circle jerk going on in this thread from people who supposedly read the article and want to pile onto reporting that seems to not have fudged anything substantial regarding the story. The Times never alleged that a new woman directly accused Kavanaugh, just that other people remembered him getting drunk, pulling out his wang and thrusting it into a girl at a different party,

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

A circle jerk going on in this thread from people who supposedly read the article and want to pile onto reporting that seems to not have fudged anything substantial regarding the story. The Times never alleged that a new woman directly accused Kavanaugh, just that other people remembered him getting drunk, pulling out his wang and thrusting it into a girl at a different party,

 

But isn't it relevant to the story that the alleged victim declined to be interviewed for the book and stated through third party that she has no recollection of the event.  There are plausible reasons why someone may say that, someone of which includes the allegations still being true, but it certainly seems like irresponsible reporting to omit that fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

But isn't it relevant to the story that the alleged victim declined to be interviewed for the book and stated through third party that she has no recollection of the event.  There are plausible reasons why someone may say that, someone of which includes the allegations still being true, but it certainly seems like irresponsible reporting to omit that fact.

 

It’s bad editing which is typical for NYTs op-Ed section at this point.

 

The book, which the op-Ed was based on apparently didn’t omit this so it seems more like bad editorial practice rather than poor journalism. 

 

It would be a big blunder I think if the news portion of the paper got this wrong, but getting bent over an op-Ed that talks about a book..meh.

Edited by No Excuses
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sucks that the actual story is being buried because the NYT was sloppy in their handling of things, but that is really their fault.  They need to be better about they word articles. In 2019, they should know that semantics will be used to make their sloppiness in reporting the bigger story than the actual story. 

 

If anything, all this new information is bringing to light what most people knew in the first place, which was the FBI probe or "investigation" into Kavanaugh was a sham and designed, not to actually find anything.

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
×
×
  • Create New...