Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Inside the Senate Minority Leader's Office late last night:
Feinstein: I got another letter that I been holding onto for the last 2 weeks, from a classmate of Ford's but she partied even more than Ford did in high school
.
Ok. That’s pretty funny.
L L wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Inside the Senate Minority Leader's Office late last night:
Feinstein: I got another letter that I been holding onto for the last 2 weeks, from a classmate of Ford's but she partied even more than Ford did in high school
.
Ok. That’s pretty funny.
Thanks!
Heitkamp’s opinion matters too.
She’s a Dem in a close race in a red state.
She may vote yes to help with her election.
L L wrote:
Heitkamp’s opinion matters too.
She’s a Dem in a close race in a red state.
She may vote yes to help with her election.
It is possible that Heitkamp or Manchin (or both) will vote Yes for the nomination. Neither would vote YES unless Rep. already have the votes to confirm. So I'm not sure how much that matters.
Fat hurts wrote:
Again, you are really reaching.
People who have a fear of flying still fly. Plus, you can't point to a single quote from Dr. Ford where she even describes a fear of flying at all. During her testimony, she does seem to indicate that she doesn't like to fly.
Dr. Ford's testimony indicates that she has suffered from the affects of her attack. But it's not debilitating. Like most people who have irrational fears, she deals with it.
I'm in much the same category. I flew a few times a couple of decades ago, but not since. I got used to flying, but absolutely hate airports, and vowed to never fly again. Although I might change my mind, it is something that I'd rather avoid.
L L wrote:
Heitkamp’s opinion matters too.
She’s a Dem in a close race in a red state.
She may vote yes to help with her election.
I don't think Heitkamp and Manchin's votes really matter. The only way they would matter is one or two of Flake, Collins, and Murkowski voted "no". Then Heitkamp or Manchin cancel out those "no" votes with a "yes".
That's just not going to happen. To show that level of disloyalty to the party would be political suicide.
Flake, Murkowski, and Collins don't have that kind of problem. They are the deciders.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Surfer Psychologist just wiped out on the Bonzai Pipeline, North Shore in December.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
Hilarious. Everyone knows surfing ruins your professional reputation.
Right. The ridiculous attacks against legitimate Kavanaugh accusers show how desperate his supporters are.
But why? Just get rid of him, and find someone much better. Almost anyone would be much better than he is.
Fat hurts wrote:
L L wrote:
Heitkamp’s opinion matters too.
She’s a Dem in a close race in a red state.
She may vote yes to help with her election.
I don't think Heitkamp and Manchin's votes really matter. The only way they would matter is one or two of Flake, Collins, and Murkowski voted "no". Then Heitkamp or Manchin cancel out those "no" votes with a "yes".
That's just not going to happen. To show that level of disloyalty to the party would be political suicide.
Flake, Murkowski, and Collins don't have that kind of problem. They are the deciders.
It doesn’t matter if one of flake, Collins or Murkowski vote no. That will result in 50-50 and Pence will break the tie
Hilarious Trump rally last night!!! Crowd was laughing and roaring with approval as the president politely pointed out crazy blasey lies.
Or to put it another way, if two of those three Republicans vote "yes", Heitkamp and Manchin can vote however they want.
If two of those three Republicans vote "no", Heitkamp and Manchin must also vote "no".
Check out Bill Burr's take on the me too movement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfhZZq8OYdo
The idea of evidence and due process have been thrown out completely.
Harambe wrote:
celery wrote:
Kavanaugh said he was (paraphrasing) the target of a political hit job fueled by hatred for Trump, Clinton revenge, and high money donors.
Everything about the statement is true. I guess in your world a judge that tells the truth is not qualified.
Lmao its the ((((Clintons')))) isn't it?
Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr on the Watergate investigation in the 90's. But I wouldn't expect you to know that since you are obviously a low information person.
Flagpole:
You ready to issue that apology for lying yet?
celery wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Lmao its the ((((Clintons')))) isn't it?
Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr on the Watergate investigation in the 90's. But I wouldn't expect you to know that since you are obviously a low information person.
Not long out of law school. Not of any importance at the time.
celery wrote:
Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr on the Watergate investigation in the 90's. But I wouldn't expect you to know that since you are obviously a low information person.
As did Rod Rosenstein. They are buddies. Chris Wray was at Yale undergrad and Yale Law school at the same time as Kavanaugh (2 years behind). They were all members of the Federalist society!
So the FBI chiefs in charge of investigating Kavanaugh are his buddies!
Yeah!
Kavanaugh, Schmavanaugh wrote:
celery wrote:
Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr on the Watergate investigation in the 90's. But I wouldn't expect you to know that since you are obviously a low information person.
As did Rod Rosenstein. They are buddies. Chris Wray was at Yale undergrad and Yale Law school at the same time as Kavanaugh (2 years behind). They were all members of the Federalist society!
So the FBI chiefs in charge of investigating Kavanaugh are his buddies!
Yeah!
Sounds like a swamp that needs draining.
rojo wrote:
I don't come on here all day and there are 15 pages I haven't read. Oh well. Maybe in the morning.
Since it's clear to me that most people are unable to look at this objectively, my goal is to get people to do that. If you don't think there are serious questions about BOTH their testimonies, then you aren't being logical.
So I urge you to challenge yourself and read something against your point of view.
If you are a Kavanaugh fan, read this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/571936/If you are Ford fan, read this:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarmIn the first article, a guy who says he's always admired Kavanaugh says he couldn't vote for him now irregardless of whether or not the charges are true:
Some guy at the Atlantic wrote:
There’s one more reason I could not vote to confirm Kavanaugh: His apparent lack of candor on the culture of drinking at Georgetown Prep and later is a problem of its own, quite apart from what it may indicate about the truth of Ford’s story. People throw around words like perjury too blithely. I won’t do so here. I will say that I do not believe he showed the sort of candor that warrants the Senate’s—or the public’s—confidence...
My bottom line is the opposite of the one Flake expressed in his statement: Faced with credible allegations of serious misconduct against him, Kavanaugh behaved in a fashion unacceptable in a justice, it seems preponderantly likely he was not candid with the Senate Judiciary Committee on important matters, and the risk of Ford’s allegations being closer to the truth than his denial of them is simply too high to place him on the Supreme Court.
We are in a political environment in which there are no rules, no norms anymore to violate. There is only power, and the individual judgments of individual senators—facing whatever political pressures they face, calculating political gain however they do it, and consulting their consciences to the extent they have them.
As much as I admire Kavanaugh, my conscience would not permit me to vote for him.
The 2nd article points out major flaws in Ford's testimony like how the # of people at the party has changed repeatedly in recent weeks, how parts of the polygraph were crossed out, how Ford can't remember whether she gave the notes to the Post or not and how Ford refuses to hand over the notes from 2012 to prove she actually talked to her therapist about it then.
Additionally, the article notes that an ex-boyfriend has come forward saying Ford had no problem living in a 500 sf apartment, flying on prop planes and says that Ford once coached her best friend on how to prepare for a lie detector test - when she told Congress she had never done such a thing. He also alleges Ford used his credit card after they broke up and lied about it until he said he was going to the authorities.
https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1047293294567456770
Rojo, I appreciate that you are trying to bring balance to the conversation, but the first article is so full of self contradictions it isn't even worth mentioning. The first few paragraphs are all about how there should be presumed innocence, and then the rest of the article contradicts that and says we should throw Kav under the bus just because of decorum and blah blah blah. It also fails to highlight all the things about Ford's testimony that seemed odd or deceptive. You can either watch her whole testimony and see them yourself, or you can look at Rachel Mitchell's 5 page report for a summary of all the reason's Ford's testimony seems suspicious.
And if you think the writer of this article is actually Kavanuagh's friend just because he says he is, I have some beachfront property in Arizona I want to sell you for a great price.
Fat hurts wrote:
celery wrote:
I'm rooting for Kavanaugh 100%, but I'm skeptical of this letter until the ex-boyfriend reveals his identity and we have corroborating evidence that they were in a relationship for the time described. I would also need a second person who knew Ford well to corroborate these general accusations, (that she had zero fear of flying and/or helped someone with a polygraph).
See how that works liberals. You don't believe something just because it would be convenient to your narrative for it to be true. You wait for corroborating evidence.
Even if this guy really was in a relationship with Dr. Ford, he admits to being a jilted lover. He would have a revenge motive.
There are lots of possible explanations for the polygraph thing:
1) The alleged ex-boyfriend is lying.
2) The alleged ex-boyfriend is mistaken.
3) Dr. Ford did give someone advice on how to relax when facing an examination, but didn't know it was for a polygraph.
4) Dr. Ford forgot that she had ever given such advice.
All four of those are far more likely than Dr. Ford misleading the committee. She had nothing to gain by lying. She could have said, "I once gave someone advice on how to relax before taking a polygraph. But when it came time for me to take one I was still nervous." Again, there was no reason to lie. The whole thing was immaterial.
You people are really going to the far reaches of possibility to make her out to be a liar and you come up empty every time.
This is exactly why I said what I said. The identity of this x-boyfriend, and the details in the letter would need to vetted before this can be taken as real evidence. Right now it is in the realm of possible but not yet corroborated evidence. Which is the exact same realm (possible but uncorroborated) that all the accusations against Kavanaugh currently stand. So if you want to hold a properly high standard of evidence and disregard this letter, you also have to disregard everything said by Ford, and all the other accusers.
celery wrote:
Rojo, I appreciate that you are trying to bring balance to the conversation, but the first article is so full of self contradictions it isn't even worth mentioning. The first few paragraphs are all about how there should be presumed innocence, and then the rest of the article contradicts that and says we should throw Kav under the bus just because of decorum and blah blah blah. It also fails to highlight all the things about Ford's testimony that seemed odd or deceptive. You can either watch her whole testimony and see them yourself, or you can look at Rachel Mitchell's 5 page report for a summary of all the reason's Ford's testimony seems suspicious.
And if you think the writer of this article is actually Kavanuagh's friend just because he says he is, I have some beachfront property in Arizona I want to sell you for a great price.
+1
The allegations are about sexual assault and remain unproven
The rest is all nonsense stuff the dems are throwing up in the air hoping something sticks, or at the very least takes up time to get us to the midterms or the end of the year
Barely Grad wrote:
celery wrote:
Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr on the Watergate investigation in the 90's. But I wouldn't expect you to know that since you are obviously a low information person.
Not long out of law school. Not of any importance at the time.
You are not aware of the attempted hit pieces on everyone who worked for Ken Starr at the time. This was alluded to in the senate hearing, but you weren't paying attention, because you are low information.