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

[Bozo the kKklown]

8 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

@BenningRoadSkin you don’t drop an attempted rape accusation the day before a committee vote and expect everyone to accept it as gospel and cancel the nomination.

Miss with most of this because this committee hasn't acted in good faith from the start with the lack of document sharing.

 

And secondly, this letter was sent before Kavanaugh was nominated. If we are to believe Feinstein, this was only released because the media already knew the allegations and were already harassing Ford.

 

8 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

My my point about a crime impacting someone the rest of their life is that is a crime shouldn’t impact your life forever, an accusation shouldn’t either. He has been accused. An accusation should not be enough to prevent an appointment. Hell, we had a President elected with multiple rape allegations (and then Trump was elected). 

I don't think it should either for the most part, except in positions where we ask for persons not to have accusations of serious crimes from their accuser. Those positions that I would request more of would include Supreme Court Justice and President of the United States. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by BenningRoadSkin

[twa]

8 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Hill alleged verbal sexual harassment and while those would support a civil case of sexual harassment, they would not rise to the level of criminal conduct.

 

I thought FBI probe was done at the instruction of elder Bush, though I could be wrong about that.

 

Did the FBI actually investigate Dr. Ford's allegations or did they just add the letter to background check material?

 

The only FBI investigation in the Hill/Thomas matter was about 10 yrs before the hearing fwir.

 

She was required to take a lie detector test and called to testify, no further investigation

 

The FBI simply added Dr.Fords accusation to the background file.. afaik

 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[NoCalMike]

14 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

 

I wish more American people wondered.

[visionary]

 

[Cooked Crack]

6 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

In order to answer for a crime, a crime has to have been committed, and one has to be charged with that crime. And part of the due process in answering to a charge is that the accused gets to face the accuser. 

Your premise was

"I swear you have been arguing on this board that crimes committed as a minor should not impact people for th e rest of their lives. Why is this any different? "

 

It's hard to impact the rest of your life if you were never accountable to begin with. I don't think this would result in any criminal action. Can't see a prosecutor actually taking it to trial. I'm sure the victim realizes that as well.

[Popeman38]

26 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Your premise was

"I swear you have been arguing on this board that crimes committed as a minor should not impact people for th e rest of their lives. Why is this any different? "

 

It's hard to impact the rest of your life if you were never accountable to begin with. I don't think this would result in any criminal action. Can't see a prosecutor actually taking it to trial. I'm sure the victim realizes that as well.

OK, so now an unproven accusation from 30+ years ago is enough to kill a nomination?  That’s the precedent we want set? Do you not see how this will become part of the playbook for nominations <insert party affiliation here> want to oppose?

6 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Miss with most of this because this committee hasn't acted in good faith from the start with the lack of document sharing.

 

And secondly, this letter was sent before Kavanaugh was nominated. If we are to believe Feinstein, this was only released because the media already knew the allegations and were already harassing Ford.

 

I don't think it should either for the most part, except in positions where we ask for persons not to have accusations of serious crimes from their accuser. Those positions that I would request more of would include Supreme Court Justice and President of the United States. 

Diane Feinstein dropped the letter the night before. She sat on it for weeks. That was what I was referring to. Political moves with accusations. Keith Ellison has much more recent accusations where the victim has actual evidence to back the accusation, and the Dems want the process to play out before they intervene. That guy is running to become the AG for a state.

 

Unproven accusations should not be a disqualified for ANY job. From minimum wage up to POTUS/SCOTUS. 

[Cooked Crack]

2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

OK, so now an unproven accusation from 30+ years ago is enough to kill a nomination?  That’s the precedent we want set? Do you not see how this will become part of the playbook for nominations <insert party affiliation here> want to oppose?

If you are credbile then sure. It would be hard to replicate this conspiracy by any political party. You'd pretty much have to be planning it for years before this guy got in position for it to pay off. Roy Moore was killed by unproven (in the court of law) accusations and I'm perfectly fine with that.

[Burgold]

2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

OK, so now an unproven accusation from 30+ years ago is enough to kill a nomination?  That’s the precedent we want set? Do you not see how this will become part of the playbook for nominations <insert party affiliation here> want to oppose?

Boy, do you sound like the defenders of the Catholic Church right now. All those priests never defiled any children! Besides, even if it did it was thirty years ago! What does it matter if they molested young boys?

 

The standard playbook for rape, sexual assault, etc is what we're seeing from the Kavanaugh side. I have heard both denials and "Ah, it was just rough horseplay," as well as the Trumpian favorite, "Boys will be boys." You are right that we should guard against "witch hunts" though I should warn you that every time Trump decries a "witch hunt" it turns out to be about something real and something that has been proven, but we also damn well better stop ignoring these acts. 

 

If Kavanaugh is guilty he's unfit for the bench. He's actually unfit for the bench for any number of reasons, but that would be a very powerful one. If Ford is lying or has mistakenly projected Kavanaugh's face onto her attacker then that needs to be brought into the light too, but we should stop acting like the Catholic Church when credible reports of sexual misconduct come about and actually act.

[Cooked Crack]

13 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Keith Ellison has much more recent accusations where the victim has actual evidence to back the accusation, and the Dems want the process to play out before they intervene. That guy is running to become the AG for a state.

I need receipts for this. Point me to the evidence. I think Ellison is probably an asshole and bad boyfriend but haven't seen anything that documents domestic abuse.

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Cooked Crack

[skinsmarydu]

14 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Of course. How could I have been so stupid.  

His son is drop-dead gorgeous in his USMC uniform...he's posted pics. 

What was it he was doing with that girl in the elevator? He looked a bit drunk...oh, yeah...the MC birthday party...??

[Going Commando]

Kavanaugh was a mistake.  One Heritage Foundation robot is as good as another from a jurisprudence standpoint, the GoP picked the wrong one.  Can they even cut him loose at this point?  It's mid September and it's going to be mighty hard to get a lameduck nominee confirmed if they don't keep the Senate.

[Going Commando]

It's obvious Trump has no dog in these judicial appointments and the GoP is picking the nominees for him.  My question is why did they pick Kavanaugh?  They knew he had a past and that they had a narrow window to appoint someone to the seat.  They've got a whole stable of credentialed far Right judges, they could have easily strong-armed someone else through the nomination process.  Why risk the seat for Kavanaugh?

[Bozo the kKklown]

37 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Keith Ellison has much more recent accusations where the victim has actual evidence to back the accusation, and the Dems want the process to play out before they intervene.

If the victim produces evidence, which she has been reluctant to do this far, then Ellison should be disqualified. We haven’t seen any evidence in th two months since the allegation first surfaced.

42 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Unproven accusations should not be a disqualified for ANY job. From minimum wage up to POTUS/SCOTUS. 

I agree!

 

Which is why Ford is asking for a criminal investigation, and not a shotgun tribunal in front of mostly angry men who DO NOT want to believe her. That’s how we prove if accusations are real or fake.

30 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

I need receipts for this. Point me to the evidence. I think Ellison is probably an asshole and bad boyfriend but haven't seen anything that documents domestic abuse.

 

He read a right wing outlet and without verifying it to do a “whatabouthim?!””

[DogofWar1]

15 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

It's obvious Trump has no dog in these judicial appointments and the GoP is picking the nominees for him.  My question is why did they pick Kavanaugh?  They knew he had a past and that they had a narrow window to appoint someone to the seat.  They've got a whole stable of credentialed far Right judges, they could have easily strong-armed someone else through the nomination process.  Why risk the seat for Kavanaugh?

 

Oh but Trump does have a dog.  Brett is the one who most loudly and clearly signaled that he'd protect Trump from the coming Muellerpocalypse.

 

But it also wouldn't surprise me if Brett was being pushed because he owes some powerful people some money, and thus is basically bought and paid for on a variety of issues.

[Going Commando]

Lost in the drama of this nomination battle has been the widespread acknowledgement that securing these judicial appointments are everything to the GoP.  The sole point of the entire GoP political apparatus is to pass tax cuts for rich people and secure a hard Right judiciary that will reliably protect the corporate interest.  Literally everything they do is as a means to achieving these two ends.  They are ideologically bankrupt.

3 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

But it also wouldn't surprise me if Brett was being pushed because he owes some powerful people some money, and thus is basically bought and paid for on a variety of issues. 

 

This was my conclusion too.  It's the only thing that explains it for me.  There has to be a personal agenda at play because this was not the smart move for the GoP as a whole.

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

 

[Popeman38]

34 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

He read a right wing outlet and without verifying it to do a “whatabouthim?!””

Is CNN a right wing outlet?

Quote

Three friends of Monahan, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of backlash, told CNN she had confided in them about the bed incident in the months after she had moved out of Ellison's apartment.

 

Monahan also shared with CNN dozens of screenshots of text messages and Twitter direct messages she claimed she exchanged with Ellison.

 

Keith Ellison said:

Quote

"Karen and I were in a long-term relationship which ended in 2016, and I still care deeply for her well-being," Ellison said in a statement. "This video does not exist because I never behaved in this way, and any characterization otherwise is false."

Doesn't the italicized portion sound a bit like the Kavanaugh denial? 

 

There is a standard for "my" team, and a standard for "your" team (general my and your) - all dependent on which team you are on. There should be one standard.

[Popeman38]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

Boy, do you sound like the defenders of the Catholic Church right now. All those priests never defiled any children! Besides, even if it did it was thirty years ago! What does it matter if they molested young boys?

 

The standard playbook for rape, sexual assault, etc is what we're seeing from the Kavanaugh side. I have heard both denials and "Ah, it was just rough horseplay," as well as the Trumpian favorite, "Boys will be boys." You are right that we should guard against "witch hunts" though I should warn you that every time Trump decries a "witch hunt" it turns out to be about something real and something that has been proven, but we also damn well better stop ignoring these acts. 

 

If Kavanaugh is guilty he's unfit for the bench. He's actually unfit for the bench for any number of reasons, but that would be a very powerful one. If Ford is lying or has mistakenly projected Kavanaugh's face onto her attacker then that needs to be brought into the light too, but we should stop acting like the Catholic Church when credible reports of sexual misconduct come about and actually act.

Boy, do you sound like a supporter of the Duke lacrosse accuser. Accuse people of a crime and place the burden of proof on them to clear their name - until they do, they are publicly flogged.

 

See, broad brush analogies are bull****. I am not defending Kavanaugh as much as I am protesting the stark and disturbing shift in society to make the accused bear the burden of proof. There is no longer an assumption of innocence when an accusation is made. In fact, when an accusation is made it is blasted out and reported on constantly, and as a fact.

 

There are people in this thread that want Kavanaugh to publicly take a polygraph, because if "he has nothing to hide" he shouldn't be worried.  Yet a polygraph is "unreliable" if used on an ordinary Joe who is accused of a crime. See ACLU: https://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp28.htm

[LD0506]

Awww man, it is to laugh.....

 

Someone gets bit by a dog and y'all want to argue about exactly what kind of dog it was 

 

The real issue here is that there was no thorough vetting done, anymore than there was before when Kan I Paw was confirmed. This is exactly WHY you do a thorough background check, get your support beforehand, answer any questions ahead of time so the confirmation is not a cluster**** like this one. This was rammed through in a way never seen before, the Rs steamrolled any objections and now want to point fingers to cover up their own ineptitude.

 

It is the perfect capper to what has been a fabulous summer of patriotic togetherness

[Kilmer17]

8 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

In order to answer for a crime, a crime has to have been committed, and one has to be charged with that crime. And part of the due process in answering to a charge is that the accused gets to face the accuser. 

Shh.  Let them froth 

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

If the victim produces evidence, which she has been reluctant to do this far, then Ellison should be disqualified. We haven’t seen any evidence in th two months since the allegation first surfaced.

I agree!

 

Which is why Ford is asking for a criminal investigation, and not a shotgun tribunal in front of mostly angry men who DO NOT want to believe her. That’s how we prove if accusations are real or fake.

He read a right wing outlet and without verifying it to do a “whatabouthim?!””

It would be nice if the left took the same approach here.  

 

Produce evidence.  

 

I long foe for days that accusations against men in the highest offices were ignored and swept under the rug by the left

[Cooked Crack]

47 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Doesn't the italicized portion sound a bit like the Kavanaugh denial? 

 

There is a standard for "my" team, and a standard for "your" team (general my and your) - all dependent on which team you are on. There should be one standard.

If Ford claimed she had video but had not provided one you'd be right.

[Popeman38]

27 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

Awww man, it is to laugh.....

 

Someone gets bit by a dog and y'all want to argue about exactly what kind of dog it was 

 

The real issue here is that there was no thorough vetting done, anymore than there was before when Kan I Paw was confirmed. This is exactly WHY you do a thorough background check, get your support beforehand, answer any questions ahead of time so the confirmation is not a cluster**** like this one. This was rammed through in a way never seen before, the Rs steamrolled any objections and now want to point fingers to cover up their own ineptitude.

 

It is the perfect capper to what has been a fabulous summer of patriotic togetherness

No real vetting?  He was vetted by the FBI on multiple occasions.  Are you part of the deep state conspiracy that thinks the FBI is incompetent?

[Burgold]

Just now, Popeman38 said:

No real vetting?  He was vetted by the FBI on multiple occasions.  Are you part of the deep state conspiracy that thinks the FBI is incompetent?

If there was vetting, the results of the vetting were not released which is just as good as no vetting being done. The Republicans sealed 90% of his record for what reason? 

[Kilmer17]

5 minutes ago, Burgold said:

If there was vetting, the results of the vetting were not released which is just as good as no vetting being done. The Republicans sealed 90% of his record for what reason? 

Is that true?   The FBI didn’t release their report?   Or are you trying to mix the vetting report with the claims about hundreds of thousands of other documents?