Trump2020OP-the real one... wrote:
Dianne Feinstein is a loathsome lying reptilian miscreant. Chuck Schumer's evil henchwoman.
M.A.G.A.
I.B.B.K
Let's not get nutty here people.
Hold yourselves above the fray.
Trump2020OP-the real one... wrote:
Dianne Feinstein is a loathsome lying reptilian miscreant. Chuck Schumer's evil henchwoman.
M.A.G.A.
I.B.B.K
Let's not get nutty here people.
Hold yourselves above the fray.
Can we talk about how everyone's aides looks exactly like what you would guess that person's aides would look like?
The best take on the whole thing is one I found by Clay Travis on periscope. Travis, now known as a sports radio host, is also a lawyer and former Democratic Congressional intern. He identifies as a moderate but never apologizes for being guy and is very much against PC culture. Here is what he said about the hearing after Dr. Ford speak and before Kavanaugh did. His points are very good. I think it's definitely worth a 30 minute listen. If you don't have 30 minutes, listen to the first 10 and then maybe the last 5 as at the end he NAILED perfectly what Kavanaugh needed to do and did do in his testimony. Here is a Cliff Notes version of what he said during the first 10 mintues and last 5. 3:15. He started by criticizing the republicans for not interviewing Ford themselves. He said they should have just dealt "with the fact that some people would say of course that guy doesn't believe that woman." But then he got into the heart of his analysis.
Clay Travis said:
I dont think you need to say that you are in the business of determining whether you believe her. I think the question is, 'Do you believe her or do you believe the four witnesses who have told different stories than her?' Because if it is 1 against 1, then it's hard to decide what we actually know but if it is 4 witnesses against 1 witness, then I think this is a big deal and it's much easier to argue.
I thought it was a really misguided move to focus on how she got an attorney, how did the polygraph take place. The idea that she is a democratic operative is to me much less interesting than whether or not her story is true.
I believe, having watched that entire testimony, that she believes her story. There are all sorts of things that we believe on a regular basis that actually are not true.... Lawyers know that among the least reliable of witnesses are eyewitnesses. There are tons of people that have been freed from off of death row because they were convicted on eyewitness testimony....
Often times, you get stories that are not true. Not because people are trying to intentionally lie necessarily but because we all see things differently even when they occur directly in front of us. We have this allusion that eyewitness testimony is incredible reliably when in essence it often isn't which is why corroborating evidence or circumstantial evidence frequently becomes so instrumental.
Here is what we know about Dr. Ford, she doesn't know the date, she doesn't know the location, she doesn't even know the year, she doesn't know how she got to or from this party and we know that there are four witnesses on the record including her best friend in high school who have all failed to confirm or corroborate any of the details she has given...
Then he said the GOP did a bad job of questioning her and talked about what they should have done (and what Kavanaugh ended up doing).
Clay Travis said:
8:45 This is what he "Focus on the evidence that is against her during your questioning. I want to know, 'What do you think about the fact that your best friend says that she has no recollection of this happening. Don't you think it's a big strange that you can claim to remember everything from inside the house so well but you don't remembrer how you got back 7 miles back home that night or how you go to the party?
Don't you think it's a bit strange that everybody else who was at this party doesn't have any recollection of it ever happening including your best friend? Why would their recollections be different than yours? This is not a he-said, she-said. This is a he said, he said, he said, she said versus a she-said. If you have five people with recollections and four of them have one recollection and the other one has a different recollection, which one in general is likely to be telling the truth overall?
Again, I don't she's intentionally lying. I think she may be mistaken, I think she may be misidentifying who the individuals are in this case. I think she believes what she is saying but there are all sorts of examples of great, tremendous people who get up on the witness stand and are proven to be wrong, not because they are intentionally lying, not because there motive is something nefarious but just because when you are on a witness stand and you are an eyewitness for something that happened 36 years ago.
The last 5 minutes were great as well as he then told what he'd do if he was Kavanaugh. It's easy in hindsight to say "Kavanaugh nailed it," It's a lot harder to predict ahead of time what he should do (and what he did end up doing).
Clay Travis said:
"You need to loook like a human, not like a lawyer or a judge... People like humans, they do not like lawyers or judges. If I were advising Brett Kavanaugh, I would (tell him to) come out guns blazing about how you didn't do this, about how awful you feel that we have entered into a universe where one person's accusations can torpedo someone from getting a job especially when it's not corroborated by any extra evidence. That you have had to sit down with your two daughters and have a conservation with them about how nasty and brutish our modern day politics has become. That even when your dad has tried to do everything (right) in his life, sometimes peopel are going to attack him because of what he believes.....
I think you need to say that you're not saying that nobody attacked Dr. Ford. You don't know what her motivations are. You don't know what happened that night in question. You're not even questioning whether it happened as you simply do not know enough. The only thing you can say is that it was not me as all of the evidence has reflected, and I think you need to say that in a human manner, not like a robot, and not like a lawyer or a judge answering questions in a courtroom thinking this is some sort of argument about legal jurisprudence.
You are in the midst of political theatre. You are putting on makeup to sit at a table. You have to put on a show that convinces the American public that what has been alleged against you is not true. You are not a professional actor but you have to act like crazy.
When I (Clay Travis) am on television, that is not a 100% accurate personification of what I am - it is a reflection of that. When you put on makeup to do your job, you are taking yourself fundamentally out of reality and putting on a show. Politicians right now are using you to stage political theatre. They know millions of people are watching, they are worried about their 2020 presidential campaigns, they are worried about their reelections.
This is not a legal proceeding where you are standing in front of the Supreme Court making a (legal) argument. In fact, this is one of the very reasons why the Supreme Court does not want cameras in the courtroom because they want to make it about the law, not about the performance. This is a trial and you learn in law school that trial courts are about putting on shows, putting on performances, being a great master of (getting the) attention of the jury.
As you move up beyond trial court and you are not peforming for a jury anymore, it's about the law, the arguments for the law. Judges typically focus not on the performance - they focus on the legal argument. Kavanaugh has to be told and he has to understand this is not about the law, this is about performance art, this is political theatre. If you want to be a Supreme Court justice, you have to go out there and put on the performance of your life, selling a verified, authentic version of yourself which emotes much more than you do normally.
Dr. Ford told a very good story. She was a very compelling witness. The Republicans did a poor job of rebutting her allegations, the Democrats did a great job of buttressing her arguments. Now is the opportunity for Brett Kavanaugh to go out and sell his side of the story. If he doesn't do a good job of selling it, then he may never get to sit of the Supreme Court. But he'll still probably get to sit on the DC Circuit. He will join Robert Bork as a footnote in history.
But there is a precedent. Will Brett Kavanaugh put on the performance of his life right now and vindicate himself, and his family and his good name? We're about to find out.
You can watch it on his facecook page or periscope/twitter.
Here it is:
https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1045377241226436608After Kavanaugh spoke, he also did another show. He's got some real interesting takes on what's next. He clearly thinks Kavanaugh should be confirmed.
Interestingly, he said the best thing that could happen for GOP and worst for the Dems is for Kavanaugh to not be confirmed. If he's not confirmed, then all of the tossup Senatorial states he think will go the GOP as the GOP base will be outraged view those races (like in TN) as a referendum on the Supreme Court. He doesn't talk about the reverse which I'll also add as I think he may be right on this. If Kavanaugh does get confirmed, it could actually help the Dems as it will enrage the Democratic base and help them in the midterms. Plus they can make the War on Woman argument again for the next few years.
https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1045444778358276096SJWHippie wrote:
Let's not get nutty here people.
Hold yourselves above the fray.
The political climate in the states has reached unbelievable levels of ugliness. The hatred is awful to watch. Americans hate Americans. I think everyone needs to take a step back and just take some time to relax and calm down.
I don’t know why there is so much anger and hatred going on but I can’t imagine this is how you all actually want to be as people. You need to find some unity.
Huapango wrote:
I don't believe Kavanaugh would've acted the way he did if he was completely innocent. The powers that be definitely don't want the FBI, or anyone else, digging up Kavanaugh's past to find out his true character. Mark Judge refusing to testify under oath about these instances speaks volumes.
OH yeah and Travis talked about the FBI thing. He said the whole thing was clearly a Democratic stunt. He said it was amazing that Dems were a) calling for an FBI investigation when they delayed reporting her thing for like 5- 6 weeks and b) apologizing to Ford for her having to be put through hell when it was they they leaked her name on purpose to try to derail Kavanaugh.
He said all the FBI would do is interview the witnesses which is what was happening on national tv. They don't reach a conclusion which is what Joe Biden has said as well:
https://youtu.be/a5F5wsul_Zo?t=36And Travis also said that if he was Kavanaugh he'd want Judge, Keyser and PJ all be there to be interviewed. If he was the GOP, he'd interview all three of them first and ask them if they were at the party or did it happen. They'd say no and then it would remind eveveryone that 4 people were saying there is no evidence or memories of this event and only 1 who does remember it.
You are a disgrace wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
To all of you who said I didn't know anything, that I was just being partisan, now we have the American Bar Association calling for a halt to the voting. The GOP reportedly doesn't have the votes, and yesterday after the hearing, a bunch of Yale students who went to school with Kavanaugh all sent around messages saying he lied like a rug about his drinking.
He will not be confirmed as I said. I will do this part in lower case, but you still get the point:
i told you so.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/28/lynne-brookes-kavanaugh-classmate-cuomo-cpt-intv-vpx-bts.cnnYou are a disgrace, you Christian hating piece of trash. Your hatred of Christians blinds you to reality. Move to Arizona already you disgusting piece of trash.
Didn't know that Christians had switched over to being pro-sexual assault. Good to know.
Awsi Dooger wrote:
Kamala Harris had the golden question but blew the application. On the way to the Canes/North Carolina game I was listening on NPR and almost drove into a truck when she asked Kavanaugh if he watched Dr. Ford's testimony in the morning, and he said no.
He's guilty and he's a liar.
I don't need any further evidence.
An innocent person absolutely watches every second of that testimony. Not only watches it, he makes copious notes and uses that testimony as the basis for his opening statement and everything he says during questioning. He amends everything he planned to say based on what he hears in the morning. You'd have to be a fool to believe otherwise.
Think about it from the standpoint of a truly innocent person: You've got to be shocked beyond belief at something like this claimed from 36 years earlier. Who is this woman? What does she look like? Does she jog any memory at all? If I listen to everything she says maybe I can make some sense of it. Maybe I can figure out who she might be confusing me for. I certainly can pick apart one claim after another.
On the other hand, a guilty person has every reason to totally ignore the Ford testimony. He never thought he would see her again. He can't believe this has resurfaced after so many decades, as threat to his career. He doesn't want to hear the familiar voice. He can't stand to relive the memory, to look at a face he remembers violating, or any recognizable gestures or idiosyncrasies.
A guilty person knows he can't fight a truthful summary from an accuser so he relies on a Roy Cohn/Donald Trump scorched earth policy of lies and fear and blaming the system and the Clintons and anyone who dares question him. After all, only the bottom line matters at all, not the truth.
If Kamala Harris merely understood what she had from the outset she could have entirely changed how the afternoon was remembered. She could have coaxed Kavanaugh into emphasizing how much time he spent preparing for his testimony. Kavanuaugh undoubtedly would have bragged about that. Then ask him if he watched Dr. Ford's testimony. Once he says no he has no idea he just stumbled into a trap. The liars always ignore the little details, like the fact that an innocent person would watch everything his accuser says, especially when in the catbird seat of being able to immediately follow her on the same stage, and with Dr. Ford unable to have a follow up rebuttal of her own.
Conservatives here will dismiss this. Who cares? They are not credible. I asked several people tonight at the football game and subsequently. Every one of them immediately agreed with me that an innocent person would watch the accuser, and a guilty person would not.
Big miss by a sharp person like Kamala Harris not to understand what she had.
While I don't agree with you, I love the thoughts behind your post. Pretty brilliant.
I don't agree because if you are innocent and know there are 4 people who say it didnt' happen all you'd think you'd have to do is figure out a way to remind people of that fact.
From the bandage on his head, Patrick Leahy likely has had a brain aneurysm. He needs to retire or be institutionalized for lack of clarity.
M.A.G.A.
I.B.B.K
Flagpole wrote:
To all of you who said I didn't know anything, that I was just being partisan, now we have the American Bar Association calling for a halt to the voting. The GOP reportedly doesn't have the votes, and yesterday after the hearing, a bunch of Yale students who went to school with Kavanaugh all sent around messages saying he lied like a rug about his drinking.
He will not be confirmed as I said. I will do this part in lower case, but you still get the point:
i told you so.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/28/lynne-brookes-kavanaugh-classmate-cuomo-cpt-intv-vpx-bts.cnn
Glad to see Flagpole is consistently foolish across all subjects. Go on PredictIt and put some money on the outcome if you're so confident, I'll gladly be your counterparty and take your money. The mentally ill woman who sounded like Lolita, installed a second front door on her house due to, supposedly, being briefly pinned to a bed thirty years earlier, and has racked up (despite being "afraid of flying") more miles than a veteran flyertalk member was not at all credible. Absolutely pathetic display from the dems, and this will hurt them among any right thinking person.
Do Dems realize this is the most moderate judge that Trump will nominate? If Kavanaugh fails to become a SC judge then the conservative base will be livid and will now show up in droves to vote in Nov. In the end the Left might seriously regret that they did everything they could to resist on a very moderate candidate and won’t be able to complain when they end up with their real worst nightmare. Well they will still complain because that is what they do.
joedirt wrote:
Ford was treated with kid gloves for political reasons. Even at that there are notable instances of her lying. I would have like to have heard more tough questions or Ford, like:
You have stated that you couldn't scream because one of the assailants hand was over your mouth. That you had a fear you might be raped or killed. After you had freed yourself and escaped to the bathroom, was their hand still over your mouth?
Was the room dark or light? Was the attack from the front or behind? Where was the radio and what song was playing? How far was it from the door to the bed? Did they carry you or did you walk? You have testified that there were 5 people at the party, but the house you described does not match the house of any of the individuals that you have said attended the party. Is it possible there were other individuals at the party, as it would be unusual for the owner of the house to not be at a party.
You know what? Those are questions that should be asked. It would also make sense to have the FBI question Mark Judge and the other people alleged to have been at that gathering then go back and question Ford and Kananaugh again. It's unwise to proceed before further investigation. In the worst case scenario, the allegations turn out to be true and a stream of women keep coming forward. What if a year from now he has 20 credible accusers? You can't push this guy through if there's a chance of that. On the other extreme, if this is a smear job by the Democrats, that's something that an investigation could also potentially demonstrate. Proof of such a thing would potentially be quite damaging for Democrats.
some thoughts wrote:
My theory:
K got drunk after taking the SATs (or whatever test it was that he took the saturday after the golf tournament)
SATs were in early June. About one month before the rape attempt according to Mark Judge's book and Ford's testimony.
A better date is July 1st which was a Thursday. July 1st is one date on his calendar about going out to get drunk with five "friends." The upcoming weekend was the Fourth of July weekend.
[quote]Simple Solution wrote:
It's worth noting that an investigation could've already happened had Feinstein not decided to play politics and keep Ford's accusation under wraps./quote]
It took all of three days for the FBI to investigate Anita Hill. Republicans claiming that it is too late to investigate a sex crime have revealed how vulgar they are.
Link.
Kavanaugh, Schmavanaugh wrote:
There is no requirement to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court.
rojo wrote:
I don't agree because if you are innocent and know there are 4 people who say it didnt' happen all you'd think you'd have to do is figure out a way to remind people of that fact.
Something you need to understand is the neither Ford or Kavanaugh have given an exact date for the rape attempt party. Yet, you believe four people who state they were not at that party. How can that be?
rojo wrote:
Awsi Dooger wrote:
Kamala Harris had the golden question but blew the application. On the way to the Canes/North Carolina game I was listening on NPR and almost drove into a truck when she asked Kavanaugh if he watched Dr. Ford's testimony in the morning, and he said no.
He's guilty and he's a liar.
I don't need any further evidence.
An innocent person absolutely watches every second of that testimony. Not only watches it, he makes copious notes and uses that testimony as the basis for his opening statement and everything he says during questioning. He amends everything he planned to say based on what he hears in the morning. You'd have to be a fool to believe otherwise.
Think about it from the standpoint of a truly innocent person: You've got to be shocked beyond belief at something like this claimed from 36 years earlier. Who is this woman? What does she look like? Does she jog any memory at all? If I listen to everything she says maybe I can make some sense of it. Maybe I can figure out who she might be confusing me for. I certainly can pick apart one claim after another.
On the other hand, a guilty person has every reason to totally ignore the Ford testimony. He never thought he would see her again. He can't believe this has resurfaced after so many decades, as threat to his career. He doesn't want to hear the familiar voice. He can't stand to relive the memory, to look at a face he remembers violating, or any recognizable gestures or idiosyncrasies.
A guilty person knows he can't fight a truthful summary from an accuser so he relies on a Roy Cohn/Donald Trump scorched earth policy of lies and fear and blaming the system and the Clintons and anyone who dares question him. After all, only the bottom line matters at all, not the truth.
If Kamala Harris merely understood what she had from the outset she could have entirely changed how the afternoon was remembered. She could have coaxed Kavanaugh into emphasizing how much time he spent preparing for his testimony. Kavanuaugh undoubtedly would have bragged about that. Then ask him if he watched Dr. Ford's testimony. Once he says no he has no idea he just stumbled into a trap. The liars always ignore the little details, like the fact that an innocent person would watch everything his accuser says, especially when in the catbird seat of being able to immediately follow her on the same stage, and with Dr. Ford unable to have a follow up rebuttal of her own.
Conservatives here will dismiss this. Who cares? They are not credible. I asked several people tonight at the football game and subsequently. Every one of them immediately agreed with me that an innocent person would watch the accuser, and a guilty person would not.
Big miss by a sharp person like Kamala Harris not to understand what she had.
While I don't agree with you, I love the thoughts behind your post. Pretty brilliant.
I don't agree because if you are innocent and know there are 4 people who say it didnt' happen all you'd think you'd have to do is figure out a way to remind people of that fact.
I don’t agree with Dooger either. With a situation as emotional and highly charged as this, I would want to stay on message. Listening to Ford too soon before himself having to publicly speak runs the risk of getting angrier than he already was, and getting flustered and getting off point. He knew what he wanted to say, said it, end of story
https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford3hr-marathoner wrote:
You know what? Those are questions that should be asked. It would also make sense to have the FBI question Mark Judge and the other people alleged to have been at that gathering then go back and question Ford and Kananaugh again. It's unwise to proceed before further investigation. In the worst case scenario, the allegations turn out to be true and a stream of women keep coming forward. What if a year from now he has 20 credible accusers? You can't push this guy through if there's a chance of that. On the other extreme, if this is a smear job by the Democrats, that's something that an investigation could also potentially demonstrate. Proof of such a thing would potentially be quite damaging for Democrats.
There's quite an incentive for women to come out of the woodwork and make spurious claims. Why would you want to give such people a platform? The smear job was obvious as soon as I saw a blown up image of a HS yearbook on the Senate floor.
rojo wrote:
While I don't agree with you, I love the thoughts behind your post. Pretty brilliant.
I don't agree because if you are innocent and know there are 4 people who say it didnt' happen all you'd think you'd have to do is figure out a way to remind people of that fact.
This is factually wrong. 4 people have not said that it didn’t happen.
One person says it happened. Ford.
One person says it didn’t happen. Kavanaugh
Everyone else says they have no memory of it. They don’t say “it didn’t happen”.
And to be clear, even Kavanaugh says it could have happened, just that it wasn’t him.
Not to mention, the 3 statements are the definition of hearsay
Your view is losing at the moment, it even looks like Kavanaugh will receive more than one Democratic vote on confirmation.