The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Chula Vista]

Originally Posted by Anteater

You could start with the facts. That would be a nice change of pace.

FACT: I lean Democrat. I toss aside the fiscal crap and focus on people's basic civil rights, and the separation of Church and State.

FACT: Your post history lays dormant for days/weeks at a time and then you open your coffin to reply to one of my political diatribes.

FACT: You always seem to come across (to me) as a closeted hard right person.

You don't quite understand why you like it, you just like it.

[Anteater]

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

I am SOOOOOOO tired of hearing about this shit. Trump should have a ready list of people that he could replace Kavanaugh with should this fall through. Just cut Kavanaugh loose and move on to the next nominee.

Well, I recall a certain hated individual expressing interest in the position before Kavanaugh was named. :P

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/rig...court-twitter/

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

FACT: I lean Democrat. I toss aside the fiscal crap and focus on people's basic civil rights, and the separation of Church and State.

FACT: Your post history lays dormant for days/weeks at a time and then you open your coffin to reply to one of my political diatribes.

FACT: You always seem to come across (to me) as a closeted hard right person.

You don't quite understand why you like it, you just like it.

FACT: You've already presumed Kavanaugh's guilt. At least I'm reasonable enough to give, for example, Keith Ellison the benefit of the doubt even if I disagree with him politically.

FACT: I've got years on you here and I post semi-frequently on a variety of things. You just don't deal well with confrontation, whereas I enjoy it.

FACT: I empathize with certain inclinations on the left (environmental advocacy, science-based thinking) and things on the right (immigration policy, lower taxes, economic policy that favors smaller government, etc.). Social issues are a case-by-case thing with me.

[[MERIT]]

[Chula Vista]

Originally Posted by Anteater

FACT: I empathize with certain inclinations on the left (environmental advocacy, science-based thinking) and things on the right (immigration policy, lower taxes, economic policy that favors smaller government, etc.).

Economic policy that favors smaller government......

Ya, give me a call when that comes close to reality.

[Lucem Ferre]

FACT: Sometimes ants will go on a massacre of all the females in their colony out of loyalty to their queen and accidentally kill the queen during the purge thus accidentally killing the future of their own colony.

[Lisnaholic]

From what I'm seeing in the mainstream media there are many reasons to worry about the Kavanaugh nomination:-

i) Ford's allegations are given credence by her consistant requests for an FBI inquiry. Pleading for an official investigation is hardly the way to go if your story is bogus.

ii) Although the incident is a difficult-to-adjudicate he said/she said issue, Ford has named Mark Judge as a witness. This is also a strange thing to do if you're making the story up.

iii) Some people suggest that drunken teen antics shouldn't count for much, but as always in modern politics, the cover up can be as problematic as the crime. Kavanaugh is on record as stating that he never went to the party, even though the time and place have not been specified. Unless K lived like a monk at High School, that denial looks suspicious, "I don't know when that party didn't take place, but I wasn't there anyway."

iv) In the closest historical precedent, when Anita Hill made allegations against Clarence Thomas, as a matter of routine an FBI enquiry was immediately set up. Sen Orin Hatch (or was it Grassley?) said at the time, "It was a very right thing to do."

v) Grassley/Trump are refusing to open an investigation into the Kavanaugh/Ford allegation. Trump is quite falsley declaring that "That's not what the FBI do," despite the fact that (see above) it is.

vi) Grassley is refusing to have Mark Judge appear before the Judiciary Committee to tell his version of events under oath. Why?

vii) Despite stalling a previous Supreme Court nomination for ten months, the GOP are now complaining about days, even hours of delay. Grassley is giving Ford a bunch of tight, arbitary deadlines whose motive can only be a desperate rush to judgement rather than an honest investigation.

viii) Mitch McConnell has declared, without caveat, that Kavanaugh will be selected for the Supreme Court. This is not like saying he's innocent until proven guilty, which is a principle I'm sure we can all agree with. It's like saying he will be treated as innocent irrespective of what transpires during the Judicial Committee's questioning.

[Anteater]

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

From what I'm seeing in the mainstream media there are many reasons to worry about the Kavanaugh nomination:-

i) Ford's allegations are given credence by her consistant requests for an FBI inquiry. Pleading for an official investigation is hardly the way to go if your story is bogus.

ii) Although the incident is a difficult-to-adjudicate he said/she said issue, Ford has named Mark Judge as a witness. This is also a strange thing to do if you're making the story up.

iii) Some people suggest that drunken teen antics shouldn't count for much, but as always in modern politics, the cover up can be as problematic as the crime. Kavanaugh is on record as stating that he never went to the party, even though the time and place have not been specified. Unless K lived like a monk at High School, that denial looks suspicious, "I don't know when that party didn't take place, but I wasn't there anyway."

iv) In the closest historical precedent, when Anita Hill made allegations against Clarence Thomas, as a matter of routine an FBI enquiry was immediately set up. Sen Orin Hatch (or was it Grassley?) said at the time, "It was a very right thing to do."

v) Grassley/Trump are refusing to open an investigation into the Kavanaugh/Ford allegation. Trump is quite falsley declaring that "That's not what the FBI do," despite the fact that (see above) it is.

vi) Grassley is refusing to have Mark Judge appear before the Judiciary Committee to tell his version of events under oath. Why?

vii) Despite stalling a previous Supreme Court nomination for ten months, the GOP are now complaining about days, even hours of delay. Grassley is giving Ford a bunch of tight, arbitary deadlines whose motive can only be a desperate rush to judgement rather than an honest investigation.

viii) Mitch McConnell has declared, without caveat, that Kavanaugh will be selected for the Supreme Court. This is not like saying he's innocent until proven guilty, which is a principle I'm sure we can all agree with. It's like saying he will be treated as innocent irrespective of what transpires during the Judicial Committee's questioning.

I) Getting the FBI involved is a delay tactic: even if they don't find anything, she would stick by her story because "that's how I remember it" and attribute any inconsistencies that they might find as her own memory not being accurate.

Regardless, it still achieves the goal of pushing back things enough to where it effects the mid-terms, and it's not the only thing we've seen. She's made excuses of why she has to have the hearing pushed further out "because I can't fly up there" even when she was made an offer where they would go down to her in California. So there's no doubt that she's stalling (as directed by her attorney). I'm curious as to why.

II) See my previous post: one of her own best friends doesn't remember it taking place. And she's the FOURTH person who is a potential named witness to say that.

III). The Anita Hill case was interesting, but not that effective a precedent for Kavanaugh. The evidence and circumstances were different as well. Unlike this case, there were also corroborating witnesses.

V) See my comments on delay tactics. The FBI could investigate, but Feinstein holding onto a letter from Ford for several months and other Democrats not even submitting questions to Kavanaugh about it during the hearing process makes it seem as though the accusation wasn't seen as credible by Feinstein or whoever else knew about Ford prior to these hearings. (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...mation-hearing).

VI) I think Judge should be subpoena'd, but he's also one of four witnesses who have all said the event either didn't happen or they don't remember it. You can argue about his motivations, but what are the excuses for the other three?

VII) It isn't arbitrary. These allegations were brought up after after THOUSANDS of questions and hours sitting in public hearings and other things have passed. The timing is impeccable. And it has been proven that Feinstein knew Ford's identity but didn't believe the allegations were credible. They were only brought forward because they literally have nothing else they can use to prevent his confirmation.

[rostasi]

Lisna gets a taste of the insane minority’s response to the obvious.

[Lisnaholic]

Originally Posted by Anteater

I) Getting the FBI involved is a delay tactic: even if they don't find anything, she would stick by her story because "that's how I remember it" and attribute any inconsistencies that they might find as her own memory not being accurate.

Regardless, it still achieves the goal of pushing back things enough to where it effects the mid-terms, and it's not the only thing we've seen. She's made excuses of why she has to have the hearing pushed further out "because I can't fly up there" even when she was made an offer where they would go down to her in California. So there's no doubt that she's stalling (as directed by her attorney). I'm curious as to why.

^ Everyone following this story knows who wants to hurry and who doesn't, but isn't American justice all about going through due process? The GOP are saying that justice should be subservient to expediency, and it's a very sinister development when a political party says, "That's gonna take an inconvenient amount of time, let's not investigate it." In fact (Anita Hill precedent again) the FBI could prob establish whatever facts are available within a few days. And it's agreed by many commentators that Grassley's "offer" to go to California was ludicrous on the face of it: it's the equivalent of the local cop saying, "Don't bother coming down to the station to register your complaint, I'll come round to your house tonight and we can sort it out." We all know how that movie plays out...

Originally Posted by Anteater

II) See my previous post: one of her own best friends doesn't remember it taking place. And she's the FOURTH person who is a potential named witness to say that.

^ I'd like to hear more corroboration, of course, but these denials only carry limited weight because they're not to the FBI, and they're not under oath. As we've seen with recent interrogations, people are more careful about what they say in those circs, but Grassley doesn't want to take that risk.

III). The Anita Hill case was interesting, but not that effective a precedent for Kavanaugh. The evidence and circumstances were different as well. Unlike this case, there were also corroborating witnesses.

^ Obv no two cases will be the same, but there are enough parallels imo to make it a guide, especially in the matter of letting the FBI find out what they can before a decision is taken. After all, what's the alternative? "Maybe there are some facts, but let's make a decision anyway, without them."

VII) It isn't arbitrary.

^ I have yet to hear a single justification for the deadlines that Grassley has laid down. One clear indication of their arbitrariness is the way they keep shifting. Another one is that the GOP set the precedent that ten months is an acceptable period of time in which to process a Supreme Court nomination. With that time scale, Grassley's hour-by-hour threats are clearly unjustifiable.



^ Nice meme! And not without a point I must admit. On the other hand, what are we hearing from the Strong-On-Crime Party? From Putin to Roy Moore and Kavanaugh, all we hear is the same feeble Trump bleat of "Well, he says he didn't do it." If ever I'm arrested in the USA I'm going to request that Trump be my interrogating officer.

( On another point raised, Yeah, something a bit off with the way Feinstein concealed then released this story. )

Originally Posted by rostasi

Lisna gets a taste of the insane minority’s response to the obvious.

^ Yes, I should really follow your example and stick to music, but I can't help getting caught up in the ongoing scandal factory which is Trump's presidency.

[Chula Vista]

Her friend's statement basically reads "Hell no. I'm not getting involved. I was also underage and drinking alcohol with older boys, one of whom is about to become a very, VERY powerful man."

Judge is key. Make him take a polygraph and testify under oath.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/polit...est/index.html

I'm still looking for a plausible explanation why this very successful and respected professor would put herself and her family through this ordeal if her story wasn't true. By all accounts she's not in need of any shill money. And if you're lying, why submit to a polygraph and request that the FBI get involved as Lisna already asked?