The 78 page politics thread

Moderators: shutout, evs' Boytoy, Irish Mike

Locked

User avatar 1001.ufgators68 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:09 am

Another one comes forward to say Kavanaugh assaulted her... and the people she named, for having knowledge of it, have already said she is full of shit.

The crazies are comng out now.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... ah-ramirez

Image

User avatar 1002.GFY » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:15 am

How about the one where Sen Hirono from Hawaii took campaign contributions from someone that admitted to beating his wife. What a great moral compass she is.

https://freebeacon.com/politics/mazie-h ... ting-wife/

1003.MoralityULack » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:36 am

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/us/p ... endar.html
Kavanaugh to Give Senate Calendars From 1982 to Back Up Denial

WASHINGTON — Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has calendars from the summer of 1982 that he plans to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that do not show a party consistent with the description of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, according to someone working for his confirmation.

The calendars do not disprove Dr. Blasey’s allegations, Judge Kavanaugh’s team acknowledged. He could have attended a party that he did not list. But his team will argue to the senators that the calendars provide no corroboration for her account of a small gathering at a house where he allegedly pinned her to a bed and tried to remove her clothing.

The calendar pages from June, July and August 1982, which were examined by The New York Times, show that Judge Kavanaugh was out of town much of the summer at the beach or away with his parents. When he was at home, the calendars list his basketball games, movie outings, football workouts and college interviews. A few parties are mentioned but include names of friends other than those identified by Dr. Blasey...
So he didn't put that he went to a party on a calendar? I'm sorry, but unless he has one that says he had an appointment, that can be corroborated, at the supposed time of the incident then so fucking what. Really grasping for straws here :lol:
Come on, dont try to make excuses. When I was in school I put all my parties on the calendar. When it started, when I got home, who was there, who had what drugs, prices, what I took, who had sex with who, and of course who I raped.

User avatar 1004.evs' Boytoy » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:57 am

:lol:

1005.Juggs » Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:53 am

Image

1006.HG 2.0 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:37 pm

So he didn't put that he went to a party on a calendar? I'm sorry, but unless he has one that says he had an appointment, that can be corroborated, at the supposed time of the incident then so fucking what. Really grasping for straws here :lol:
Come on, dont try to make excuses. When I was in school I put all my parties on the calendar. When it started, when I got home, who was there, who had what drugs, prices, what I took, who had sex with who, and of course who I raped.
How leftist of you ... there was no rape .... he is accused of copping a feel .... I’m sure your innocent pure soul never touched a girl before

1007.rampart » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:01 pm



So he didn't put that he went to a party on a calendar? I'm sorry, but unless he has one that says he had an appointment, that can be corroborated, at the supposed time of the incident then so fucking what. Really grasping for straws here :lol:
Come on, dont try to make excuses. When I was in school I put all my parties on the calendar. When it started, when I got home, who was there, who had what drugs, prices, what I took, who had sex with who, and of course who I raped.
How leftist of you ... there was no rape .... he is accused of copping a feel .... I’m sure your innocent pure soul never touched a girl before
Can't speak for VD but Against a girls will? Are you fucking kidding me? No, I haven't.

1008.HG 2.0 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:11 pm



Come on, dont try to make excuses. When I was in school I put all my parties on the calendar. When it started, when I got home, who was there, who had what drugs, prices, what I took, who had sex with who, and of course who I raped.
How leftist of you ... there was no rape .... he is accused of copping a feel .... I’m sure your innocent pure soul never touched a girl before
Can't speak for VD but Against a girls will? Are you fucking kidding me? No, I haven't.
Assuming her drunken recollection is accurate..... she remembers nothing at all, but that’s her memory?
Doesn’t know when, where, who....no witnesses no idea when to where the party happened. Just a little odd, because all the other women coming out now, even after 30 years seems to remember all the details

1009.rampart » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:19 pm



How leftist of you ... there was no rape .... he is accused of copping a feel .... I’m sure your innocent pure soul never touched a girl before
Can't speak for VD but Against a girls will? Are you fucking kidding me? No, I haven't.
Assuming her drunken recollection is accurate..... she remembers nothing at all, but that’s her memory?
Doesn’t know when, where, who....no witnesses no idea when to where the party happened. Just a little odd, because all the other women coming out now, even after 30 years seems to remember all the details
I don't know if she told the truth. We got one side that would love more than anything for this to all just quietly go away and another side that seems willing to testify but is weary of the circumstances. I don't know if she's telling the truth and I don't care to argue the definition of rape, what she is accusing him of is sexual assault and no, I've never done it, and no it's not ok. Ever.

1010.HG 2.0 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:31 pm



Can't speak for VD but Against a girls will? Are you fucking kidding me? No, I haven't.
Assuming her drunken recollection is accurate..... she remembers nothing at all, but that’s her memory?
Doesn’t know when, where, who....no witnesses no idea when to where the party happened. Just a little odd, because all the other women coming out now, even after 30 years seems to remember all the details
I don't know if she told the truth. We got one side that would love more than anything for this to all just quietly go away and another side that seems willing to testify but is weary of the circumstances. I don't know if she's telling the truth and I don't care to argue the definition of rape, what she is accusing him of is sexual assault and no, I've never done it, and no it's not ok. Ever.
I’m just curious, why do you believe her? He’s already said he didn’t do it, her witnesses said it didn’t happen that way?
What more is possible at this point? There is no crime scene, there is no physical evidence, it not even good hearsay evidence... why do you believe her?

1011.rampart » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:40 pm


Assuming her drunken recollection is accurate..... she remembers nothing at all, but that’s her memory?
Doesn’t know when, where, who....no witnesses no idea when to where the party happened. Just a little odd, because all the other women coming out now, even after 30 years seems to remember all the details
I don't know if she told the truth. We got one side that would love more than anything for this to all just quietly go away and another side that seems willing to testify but is weary of the circumstances. I don't know if she's telling the truth and I don't care to argue the definition of rape, what she is accusing him of is sexual assault and no, I've never done it, and no it's not ok. Ever.
I’m just curious, why do you believe her? He’s already said he didn’t do it, her witnesses said it didn’t happen that way?
What more is possible at this point? There is no crime scene, there is no physical evidence, it not even good hearsay evidence... why do you believe her?
I didn't say I do. She might be telling the truth but the pubs have zero desire in finding out

User avatar 1012.ufgators68 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:07 pm

I didn't say I do. She might be telling the truth but the pubs have zero desire in finding out
Yes. That is why they have been bending over backwards to get her to Washington.

Image

1013.MoralityULack » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:10 pm

I wonder what Fox news would you call it if a homeless illegal Mexican grabbed a woman off the street and dragged her in an alley, pinned her down. ripped her clothes off, groped her and covered her mouth till she was suffocating.

I bet most here would be calling for vigilante justice. Burn him alive.

Off course thats completely different since we know that Trump doing the exact same thing at least twice out of his 23 sex offenses is OK.

This is just another facet of both the racism and the deep need to adore a (rich white male) alpha pack leader of the Trumpettes.

Its is NOT A FUCKING TRIAL. It is a JOB INTERVIEW. Before giving someone a 40 year contract to be all of Americas role model for unquestioned morality, lack of prejudice of any kind, and fairness. Do you really think this is the best you can do?

1014.9508 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:14 pm

I didn't say I do. She might be telling the truth but the pubs have zero desire in finding out
Yes. That is why they have been bending over backwards to get her to Washington.
Without investigation

1015.MoralityULack » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:14 pm

Then again, if you look around at Trump and his associates - rapists, child rapists, klansmen, nazi murders, racists, crooks, money launders, tax cheats, perjurers, scam artists, mobsters, foreign mobsters, despots, traitors, Russian spies -maybe it is

1016.9508 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:20 pm

Rumors that pubs new about second woman’s allegations last week.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... new-yorker

It’s just rumors though. Hard to prove.

User avatar 1017.DocZaius » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:24 pm

You PM'd me his comments about Clinton, but the "perjury" accusation against Kavanaugh is shaky at best.
In 2006 under oath, on public record, he said he knew nothing about a matter that Congress was investigating. eMails obtained years later show he was involved in meetings on the subject, was assigned a central role, created many documents on the matter .

How is that not open and shut?

I PMed you his Clinton comments along with the case to show that Kavanaugh himself wanted to Congress to be merciless in perjury cases.
Getting back to the "perjury" allegations, the only one that seems to have anything substantial behind it is that he(at least according to noted right-wing mouthpiece,Washington Post) told Russ Feingold that he wasn't "one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling" and that he was not "the associate counsel... assigned to Judge Pickering's nomination," in response to a written question. And here, the Post is being a little ticky-tacky. It even admits that Kavanaugh's response was accurate, "in the narrowest sense of the word." The Post believes that emails show that Kavanaugh was more deeply involved in Pickering's nomination process than his answer would lead Feingold to believe. I think this falls pretty far short of "perjury," even if Kavanaugh withheld some information about his involvement.

I admit I haven't watched the hearing or read any of the documents, but so much of getting the truth from a witness is asking the right questions - and this sounds like an instance where Feingold didn't ask the questions best designed to get the truth out of Kavanaugh.

All the other allegations cited by the Washington Post earned 2 or 3 pinocchios - meaning that Sen. Leahy's accusations of perjury were not substantially justified.

Frankly, I have bigger issues with Kavanaugh's finances - he seemed to be deep in debt one year, and then fine the next, with no rational explanation given. Don't know why that's not getting more airplay, I guess it's not as media-friendly a scandal as being accused of disrespecting women.

Recapping the latest about his sexual assault allegations:

1. Ford's story didn't check out - the fourth "witness," her "lifelong friend," Leland Ingham Keyser, was contacted by the committee and she had no recollection of such an event. Ford's done, there is nothing to support her claim.

2. Now they trot out another accuser whose claim can't be backed up, either, and who admits that it took her six days to "carefully assess her memories" in consultation with her lawyer before she felt like she could come forward. Like Ford, there is no corroboration of her story.

3. Now we have Stormy Daniels' lawyer trotting out a vague allegation of another victim, but providing no details other than innuendo fueled by some vague comments in Kavanaugh's high school yearbook.

I find this all very unseemly, but the Democrats appear to be gleefully engaged in slinging this mud. This is going to become par for the course for future judicial nominees. Just wait until the next Democratic President has a nomination to fill - the Republicans are not above doing this kind of shit, either.

1018.rampart » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:25 pm

Why not just cut bait? Seriously.

1019.rampart » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:27 pm

You PM'd me his comments about Clinton, but the "perjury" accusation against Kavanaugh is shaky at best.
In 2006 under oath, on public record, he said he knew nothing about a matter that Congress was investigating. eMails obtained years later show he was involved in meetings on the subject, was assigned a central role, created many documents on the matter .

How is that not open and shut?

I PMed you his Clinton comments along with the case to show that Kavanaugh himself wanted to Congress to be merciless in perjury cases.
Getting back to the "perjury" allegations, the only one that seems to have anything substantial behind it is that he(at least according to noted right-wing mouthpiece,Washington Post) told Russ Feingold that he wasn't "one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling" and that he was not "the associate counsel... assigned to Judge Pickering's nomination," in response to a written question. And here, the Post is being a little ticky-tacky. It even admits that Kavanaugh's response was accurate, "in the narrowest sense of the word." The Post believes that emails show that Kavanaugh was more deeply involved in Pickering's nomination process than his answer would lead Feingold to believe. I think this falls pretty far short of "perjury," even if Kavanaugh withheld some information about his involvement.

I admit I haven't watched the hearing or read any of the documents, but so much of getting the truth from a witness is asking the right questions - and this sounds like an instance where Feingold didn't ask the questions best designed to get the truth out of Kavanaugh.

All the other allegations cited by the Washington Post earned 2 or 3 pinocchios - meaning that Sen. Leahy's accusations of perjury were not substantially justified.

Frankly, I have bigger issues with Kavanaugh's finances - he seemed to be deep in debt one year, and then fine the next, with no rational explanation given. Don't know why that's not getting more airplay, I guess it's not as media-friendly a scandal as being accused of disrespecting women.

Recapping the latest about his sexual assault allegations:

1. Ford's story didn't check out - the fourth "witness," her "lifelong friend," Leland Ingham Keyser, was contacted by the committee and she had no recollection of such an event. Ford's done, there is nothing to support her claim.

2. Now they trot out another accuser whose claim can't be backed up, either, and who admits that it took her six days to "carefully assess her memories" in consultation with her lawyer before she felt like she could come forward. Like Ford, there is no corroboration of her story.

3. Now we have Stormy Daniels' lawyer trotting out a vague allegation of another victim, but providing no details other than innuendo fueled by some vague comments in Kavanaugh's high school yearbook.

I find this all very unseemly, but the Democrats appear to be gleefully engaged in slinging this mud. This is going to become par for the course for future judicial nominees. Just wait until the next Democratic President has a nomination to fill - the Republicans are not above doing this kind of shit, either.
Two points:

Agreed about the financials, is no one looking into this?

And fuck the republicans and their nominations / Merrick garland

User avatar 1020.ufgators68 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:28 pm

I didn't say I do. She might be telling the truth but the pubs have zero desire in finding out
Yes. That is why they have been bending over backwards to get her to Washington.
Without investigation
What is there to investigate? There are sworn statements, from the people she identified being there, that deny they were at a party with Kavanaugh and Ford. Kavanaugh says it never happened.

Ford cannot name a time or place that the offense happened.

Image

User avatar 1021.DocZaius » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:29 pm



I don't know if she told the truth. We got one side that would love more than anything for this to all just quietly go away and another side that seems willing to testify but is weary of the circumstances. I don't know if she's telling the truth and I don't care to argue the definition of rape, what she is accusing him of is sexual assault and no, I've never done it, and no it's not ok. Ever.
I’m just curious, why do you believe her? He’s already said he didn’t do it, her witnesses said it didn’t happen that way?
What more is possible at this point? There is no crime scene, there is no physical evidence, it not even good hearsay evidence... why do you believe her?
I didn't say I do. She might be telling the truth but the pubs have zero desire in finding out
Except they've obtained statements from everyone who she named as a witness.

The FBI does not investigate 35-year-old state crimes. The Senate can't order them to do it, either. The Democrats know this, but they also know that the public is stupid and it makes a good sound bite.

1022.rampart » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:31 pm



I’m just curious, why do you believe her? He’s already said he didn’t do it, her witnesses said it didn’t happen that way?
What more is possible at this point? There is no crime scene, there is no physical evidence, it not even good hearsay evidence... why do you believe her?
I didn't say I do. She might be telling the truth but the pubs have zero desire in finding out
Except they've obtained statements from everyone who she named as a witness.

The FBI does not investigate 35-year-old state crimes. The Senate can't order them to do it, either. The Democrats know this, but they also know that the public is stupid and it makes a good sound bite.
Just to clarify, were these statements under oath?

And more to my point, the general "Feeling" of it all is "we don't give a fuck but we will play along" so long as we can get this all over before the mid terms
Last edited by rampart on Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar 1023.DocZaius » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:32 pm

Two points:

Agreed about the financials, is no one looking into this?

And fuck the republicans and their nominations / Merrick garland
I agree - I think Garland deserved a vote, but that's the political climate that both sides have fostered since Bork.

1024.9508 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:33 pm



I’m just curious, why do you believe her? He’s already said he didn’t do it, her witnesses said it didn’t happen that way?
What more is possible at this point? There is no crime scene, there is no physical evidence, it not even good hearsay evidence... why do you believe her?
I didn't say I do. She might be telling the truth but the pubs have zero desire in finding out
Except they've obtained statements from everyone who she named as a witness.

The FBI does not investigate 35-year-old state crimes. The Senate can't order them to do it, either. The Democrats know this, but they also know that the public is stupid and it makes a good sound bite.
The president can order it. But has stated he will not.

1025.rampart » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:35 pm

Two points:

Agreed about the financials, is no one looking into this?

And fuck the republicans and their nominations / Merrick garland
I agree - I think Garland deserved a vote, but that's the political climate that both sides have fostered since Bork.
Bork was a long time ago. Plenty of justices on both sides confirmed since then. The pubs decided to declare war. They got it.
Sort by

« Sports, Entertainment, and Everything Else