Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Burgold

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

What happens after this, with either outcome?

 

Republicans will never forget this if hes stopped. Never. They will use similar tactics every time from here on out. 

 

If this doesnt stop him, what next? Even without the sexual assault there is enough there to seriously question him. Add that Republicans basically stole the seat, you think dems wont eventually get bad enough that they do the same in the future? They def will. 

 

Nothing good will come of this. 

Sadly I think you’re right on all accounts.  When Dems have the WH and Senate I guarantee there will be an accuser for every single Dem nominee. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I don’t think it’s weong to question the motives of the accuser or the Dems in this instance.

 

 

i didn't say it was---you do that a lot :)

and i didn't even address you :D

 soooo defensive :806: (cuz you're perpetually guilty, we know)

 

 

suspicion should be fully expected and claims need to be well supported and the whole process to date is open to scrutiny...never indicated otherwise on any of tat becuase why would i...what i said referred to trying to decide whether the fundamental facts of the assault are real or not....as it's too early...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why discussing 6 years ago seems key. You'd have to pretty much start the conspiracy before knowing the person would be nominated.

 

 

Quote

Instead, the President’s team and his allies on and off the Hill began to mount a vigorous defense against the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, questioning why she had identified herself only now, and framing Kavanaugh’s alleged antics as almost commonplace in nature.

 

Edited by Cooked Crack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have little use for some left/dem positions (not here) I'm seeing  that are treating the claims as automatically 100% true. And I have sympathy for those who feel they know the guy or have followed him a bit and find it hard to believe---not for the obvious reason of just not wanting to believe it, but also because when such events turn out to be true, that's still very typical--to have many other people think the offender had been a great guy, no issues---it's almost cliche.

 

It's pretty lame to offer defenses in such matters like a list of 65 supportive women or think that professional testimonials should carry much weight as counterpoints in this kind of situation, but it's what we do. if she testifies, it will be quite the thing to see whether she can come off as a credible person with a believable case to the public

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

They (the FBI) apparently added the allegation to the file they send to the White House on nominees, but have not opened a criminal investigation.

 

So, 

 

1)  The White House knew about the allegation before they even nominated him.  

 

2)  And Lindsey Graham is trying to claim that the Democrats are evil because they didn't bring it up sooner.  

 

I keep remembering seeing Colbert interview Kevin Spacey about the two weeks he was invited to shadow several members of Congress, to prepare him for House of Cards.  

 

Colbert asked him whether these people in Congress actually believe what they shovel, or is it all an act?  

 

"Oh, it's performance art.  And some of them are really bad actors."  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, visionary said:
This doesn’t really seem relevant in this particular case though with what we know now.

 

The revelations regarding the marriage counseling from 2012 raise this above a mere "person makes allegation" situation, indeed.  And if the matter is investigated further, more information may come to light.

 

That being said, that's not how these things ever go, politically.

 

With how strenuously the GOP wants him confirmed, it will take more evidence than exists at present to stop him.

 

If that evidence comes out, and Brett is stopped, it will have been because of the evidence having reached a point of being sufficiently overwhelming.

 

However, time has a way of making the past fuzzy.

 

Ten years from now, some may remember the corroborating details that made the story credible, but many will just remember that he was taken down because someone accused him.

 

That fuzzy recollection that loses a lot of key details will be pushed as "the standard," especially if its Dems nominating someone, because then it becomes politically expedient to lower the standard.

 

We basically saw the same thing with Merrick Garland.  It's okay for them to never even hold a hearing for him because [insert some thing that isn't really analogous unless you squint really hard and ignore a bunch of stuff from 10+ years ago].

 

We'll see it again on this.

 

8 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

So, 

 

1)  The White House knew about the allegation before they even nominated him.  

 

Actually I think the FBI added it just recently when Feinstein sent it over.  So not before he was nominated.

 

That being said, someone on the right knew a while ago, no one can pull testimonials from 60+ pertinent people that quickly, someone was working on that for weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cnn did receive her entire letter and read it on the air, minus some name/place redactions

 

speaking casually, it had the kind of content and "tone" i'd find congruent with someone reporting an authentic event, but that doesn't mean it was, or that any congressional committee would go just by her letter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 "...and framing Kavanaugh’s alleged antics as almost commonplace in nature. "

 

And this is the problem, sexual assault of girls/women is regarded as "commonplace". And until it's not regarded as commonplace but as criminal behavior subject to prosecution, we women still have to deal with this rape culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 "...and framing Kavanaugh’s alleged antics as almost commonplace in nature. "

 

And this is the problem, sexual assault of girls/women is regarded as "commonplace". And until it's not regarded as commonplace but as criminal behavior subject to prosecution, we women still have to deal with this rape culture.

 

doing so is easier if you don't wait decades.

 

 

Quote


Trouble is, while this is closer to how this is supposed to work, there’s still nothing much to investigate. The accuser has summoned a vague memory of an event from thirty years in the past — a memory she didn’t mention until six years ago, to which she cannot attach a time or place, and that is recorded in notes that neither line up cleanly with her current story nor name Kavanaugh as the perpetrator. The two other parties have both categorically denied it, and nobody else from that era has weighed in. In addition, there are no other accusers, and every thing else we know about the accused is positive. That doesn’t mean the accuser is not telling the truth, of course. But it does mean that there’s no way of preventing a classic he said/she said dispute.

Which is all to say that this has now become a political question. Unfair as it may be, the core calculation now will not be whether the charges are true (we don’t know) or whether the timings and assumptions are fair (they are not), but what the various players consider the least dangerous course politically. Perhaps Republicans will want to make clear that they will not be bulled by eleventh hour half-charges. Or perhaps they will cut their losses lest they help Democrats turn out women in the midterms. Who knows? Either way, this is a low moment in the history of the Senate — and one that has little to do with justice.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/so-now-what/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, twa said:

Interesting timing, I look forward to the circus.

 

 

the timing is a thing---but also typifies how this can be rather tricky to clear up even if true

 

it is also typical--in fact, as the roy jones case---for some major event like a past abuser now in a national spotlight that's celebrating them to be the kind of crack that allows long-held dams to burst

 

her full letter pleads very powerfully for feinstein to hold confidence until they could talk more, but i am def undecided with tinges of suspicion--i am a cynical sort, being well-informed on people stuff :P

 

 

need more data

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, twa said:

Interesting timing, I look forward to the circus.

Oh my god. You mean it hasn't been one already up to this point? I hate 2018 so much...We gotta change the whole definition of what qualifies as a circus now.

 

Kinda like the first time I saw this...

 

It was like, "What the **** was that? That's not a circus!!"

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

People feeling sexual assault accusations should be handled one way when it's a member of their political party and another when it's the opposition is quite a phenomenon. What percentage of Americans do you think have no principles?

 

Whatever the number is, its increasing at a dangerous rate

  • Like 3
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...