Are all Republicans Scumbags?

A place for intelligent and well-thought-out discussion involving politics and associated topics. No nonsense will be tolerated at all.
User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

telcoman wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:30 am
Rogue One wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:56 am
NY Times couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it.
The New York Times and The Washington Post have been at the helm of providing the truth of government coverups,lying, false information and wrongdoing for decades.

Telcoman
Come off it Howie, even Salon.com has run articles on the NYT's lies.
December 11, 2014 These are lies the New York Times wants you to believe about Russia
January 21, 2015 Distortions, lies and omissions: The New York Times won’t tell you the real story behind Ukraine, Russian economic collapse
September 2, 2015 Outright lies from the New York Times: What you need to know about the dangerous new phase in the Ukraine crisis

From Real Clear Politics: The Mind-Boggling Lies of the NY Times

Extreme Left biased blog site DAILY KOS said this:
Hey, the New York Times is employing the technique of propagandist ***holes everywhere by calling their opponents "purists". I'm impressed.

Of course, the real a$$ of that last paragraph is claiming that the "rules are meant to prevent Internet providers from knowingly slowing data."

This is just a blatant, transparent, and indisputable lie..

The New York Times is no better than Fox News. In fact, it's actually worse. Because they are perceived to be credible. "The Gray Lady" and all that rubbish. As such, they do far more damage than Fox will ever do.

Well, if you had any doubt, this should put an end to it. The New York Times is just another lying piece of propaganda, at best.


User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Rogue One wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:01 am
telcoman wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:30 am


The New York Times and The Washington Post have been at the helm of providing the truth of government coverups,lying, false information and wrongdoing for decades.

Telcoman
Come off it Howie, even Salon.com has run articles on the NYT's lies.
December 11, 2014 These are lies the New York Times wants you to believe about Russia
January 21, 2015 Distortions, lies and omissions: The New York Times won’t tell you the real story behind Ukraine, Russian economic collapse
September 2, 2015 Outright lies from the New York Times: What you need to know about the dangerous new phase in the Ukraine crisis

From Real Clear Politics: The Mind-Boggling Lies of the NY Times

Extreme Left biased blog site DAILY KOS said this:
Hey, the New York Times is employing the technique of propagandist ***holes everywhere by calling their opponents "purists". I'm impressed.

Of course, the real a$$ of that last paragraph is claiming that the "rules are meant to prevent Internet providers from knowingly slowing data."

This is just a blatant, transparent, and indisputable lie..

The New York Times is no better than Fox News. In fact, it's actually worse. Because they are perceived to be credible. "The Gray Lady" and all that rubbish. As such, they do far more damage than Fox will ever do.

Well, if you had any doubt, this should put an end to it. The New York Times is just another lying piece of propaganda, at best.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:


For now! But not forever.
Welcome to the President’s Rat Pack, Paul Manafort
The demand for justice once again outweighs the president’s demand for loyalty.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/opin ... e=Homepage

"

Pardon us, but was it only three weeks ago that President Trump expressed “such respect” for Paul Manafort, his former campaign chairman and freshly minted felon, who had refused to cooperate with the special counsel’s office and took his federal bank- and tax-fraud conviction like a “brave man”?

That tribute was meant to highlight the president’s contempt for the decision by his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, to plead guilty that same day to his own charges of bank fraud, tax fraud and campaign-finance violations. Unlike the weak Mr. Cohen, Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, Mr. Manafort “refused to ‘break’ — make up stories in order to get a ‘deal.’”
So much for that. Mr. Trump’s expectation that there is any honor among thieves has been confounded once again.

On Friday, Mr. Manafort broke in a big way — agreeing to cooperate “fully, truthfully, completely, and forthrightly” regarding “any and all matters” the special counsel, Robert Mueller, wants him to.

The bombshell agreement was part of a guilty plea Mr. Manafort entered in a separate case in a Washington federal court, relating to his lucrative lobbying work for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine. He copped to charges of conspiring to defraud the United States and to obstruct justice, each of which carries a sentence of up to five years in prison. Mr. Manafort also agreed to forfeit $46 million in cash and property derived from his crimes.

In return, Mr. Mueller agreed to drop five other counts, which included money laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent, and not to retry Mr. Manafort on 10 counts over which last month’s jury deadlocked.

Unless Mr. Trump is watching Fox News, he can’t be feeling too good right now. In January, NBC News reported that he had told friends and aides he had decided Mr. Manafort wouldn’t “flip” on him. And the two men’s lawyers have been in regular contact as part of a joint defense agreement, according to Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. If any of those conversations involved the dangling of a pardon for Mr. Manafort — which prosecutors might consider to be obstruction of justice — they would not be protected by any privilege and would probably be fair game for Mr. Mueller.

What else might Mr. Manafort reveal? Mr. Mueller is very interested in that curious meeting he attended, along with Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, at Trump Tower in June 2016 — the one with the Russian government representative who promised to provide “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.
The White House’s defense is that the crimes for which Mr. Manafort was convicted, committed long before joining the Trump campaign, have nothing to do with the president.

The bad news for Mr. Trump is that there are still many unanswered questions about how Mr. Manafort exploited his Russian connections in the service of helping Mr. Trump’s campaign, and whether Mr. Trump knew or was involved in any way. Beyond the Trump Tower meeting, there’s evidence that Mr. Manafort hoped to use the campaign job — for which he took no paycheck — to help Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch with close ties to President Vladimir Putin, and to extract himself from a multimillion-dollar debt to the tycoon.

For now, Mr. Manafort can take comfort in the knowledge that he joins an ever-growing crowd of top Trump associates who have pleaded guilty to federal offenses: Michael Flynn, the president’s former national security adviser; George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign; Rick Gates, Mr. Manafort’s business partner and deputy campaign chairman; and Mr. Cohen, whose case is being handled by federal prosecutors in Manhattan. All have agreed to cooperate with authorities, except Mr. Cohen — and even that may be changing.

How many more guilty pleas and convictions will there be in Trumpworld before all this crime starts to look — how can we put it — organized?"

Fake News my a$$
Everyone Who’s Been Charged as a
Result of the Mueller Investigation



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... arges.html

Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating possible links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, has issued more than 100 criminal counts against 32 people and three companies. Additionally, two people — Michael D. Cohen, a former lawyer of President Trump and Sam Patten, a lobbyist linked to Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort — pleaded guilty to charges that stemmed from Mr. Mueller’s inquiry.
Who has been charged with crimes Charges Outcome
George Papadopoulos
George Papadopoulos Former campaign adviser Lying to the F.B.I. about conversations with people he believed were working on behalf of Russians (pleaded guilty Oct. 5, 2017) Sentenced to 14 days in prison Sept. 7, 2018
Sam Patten
Sam Patten Lobbyist linked to Paul Manafort Failing to register to work as an agent of a foreign power Pleaded guilty Aug. 31, 2018
Paul Manafort
Paul Manafort Former campaign chairman Tax and bank fraud, false statements, being an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, obstruction of justice Convicted of financial fraud Aug. 21, 2018
Michael D. Cohen
Michael D. Cohen Mr. Trump’s former lawyer Tax evasion, bank fraud, campaign finance violations Pleaded guilty Aug. 21, 2018
Alex van der Zwaan
Alex van der Zwaan Lawyer who worked with Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates Lying to investigators about conversations with Mr. Gates (pleaded guilty Feb. 20, 2018) Sentenced to 30 days in prison April 3, 2018
Rick Gates
Rick Gates Former campaign adviser Financial fraud and lying to the F.B.I. Pleaded guilty Feb. 23, 2018
Richard Pinedo
Richard Pinedo California man who sold bank accounts online Identity fraud Pleaded guilty Feb. 12, 2018
Michael T. Flynn
Michael T. Flynn Former national security adviser Lying to the F.B.I. about conversations with the Russian ambassador Pleaded guilty Dec. 1, 2017
Thirteen Russian nationals
Thirteen Russian nationals and three related companies Conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to commit bank fraud, identity theft
Konstantin V. Kilimnik
Konstantin V. Kilimnik Russian Army-trained linguist and associate of Mr. Manafort Obstruction of justice
Twelve Russian intelligence officers
Twelve Russian intelligence officers Conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, identity theft, conspiracy to launder money

The news that Hannity ignores.
Paul Manafort Agrees to Cooperate With Special Counsel; Pleads Guilty to Reduced Charges


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/us/p ... e=Homepage

" Mr. Manafort joins four other Trump aides who have offered cooperation in exchange for lesser charges in cases that Mr. Mueller’s office either pursued or referred to federal prosecutors in New York. They include Michael D. Cohen, the president’s longtime personal lawyer; Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser; Rick Gates, the former deputy campaign chairman; and George Papadopoulos, a former campaign adviser. "

"Mr. Manafort also agreed to surrender most of his once-vast personal fortune including three houses and two apartments — one in Trump Tower in Manhattan."

Perhaps Mueller can now set up his New York Headquarters right in Trump Tower in the apartment formally owned by Paul Manafort?

Follow the money

Telcoman

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Of course lets not forget these republican scumbags

Here Are the Republicans Who Voted 'No' on Hurricane Sandy Relief Funds

http://gawker.com/5973255/here-are-the- ... lief-funds

Telcoman

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Is someone accused of an attempted rape while in high school qualified or should ever be considered for the highest court in the land?

I don't think so!

Trump's pick for the Supreme Court
California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... nal&wpmk=1

"Earlier this summer, Christine Blasey Ford wrote a confidential letter to a senior Democratic lawmaker alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than three decades ago, when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. Since Wednesday, she has watched as that bare-bones version of her story became public without her name or her consent, drawing a blanket denial from Kavanaugh and roiling a nomination that just days ago seemed all but certain to succeed.
Now, Ford has decided that if her story is going to be told, she wants to be the one to tell it.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County."

Telcoman

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

So you're willing to convict him on an allegation made by ONE person, despite 65 women who knew Kavanaugh during those years releasing a letter supporting the character of the Supreme Court nominee? Need I point out it's an UNPROVEN ALLEGATION, from three decades ago that she's just now bringing up. Frankly I find that highly suspicious, and you should too.

Presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. He has not been charged, only accused, and until he's convicted in a court of law he should extended those rights. Seriously Howie, does rule of law mean nothing to you?

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

White House, Huckabee Float Criminal Indictment for Kerry

White House insiders are pushing a criminal indictment for former Secretary of State John Kerry’s meddling in U.S. diplomacy and what began as quiet discussions are now gaining steam in the mainstream, insiders confirm.

Mike Huckabee reacted Sunday on “Fox & Friends” to former Secretary of State John Kerry for holding private meetings with Iranian officials.

As Fox News reported:

Former Secretary of State John Kerry is being slammed for conducting shadow diplomacy with Iran after admitting to multiple meetings with Iranian officials behind the backs of Trump administration officials — including over the scrapped nuclear deal.

An administration official on Thursday told Fox News Kerry’s meetings are “shameful,” pointing out what Iranian-backed militias are doing to kill and injure people in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

Other Republicans suggested it may not even be legal.

Huckabee said Kerry could be suited for the first successful prosecution of the Logan Act of 1799, which prohibits conducting unauthorized diplomacy with governments in dispute with the United States.

https://truepundit.com/white-house-huck ... for-kerry/

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Rogue One wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:02 pm
So you're willing to convict him on an allegation made by ONE person, despite 65 women who knew Kavanaugh during those years releasing a letter supporting the character of the Supreme Court nominee? Need I point out it's an UNPROVEN ALLEGATION, from three decades ago that she's just now bringing up. Frankly I find that highly suspicious, and you should too.

Presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. He has not been charged, only accused, and until he's convicted in a court of law he should extended those rights. Seriously Howie, does rule of law mean nothing to you?
Not at all suspicious the way women have been treated previously.

Hearing Set for Monday to Hear Kavanaugh and His Accuser

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/us/p ... e=Homepage

No rush to confirm a Supreme Court nominee since republicans refused to even give Merrick Garland a hearing.

"WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, under mounting pressure from senators of his own party, will call President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, and the woman who has accused him of sexual assault before the committee on Monday for extraordinary public hearings only weeks before the midterm elections.

In setting the hearing, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, backed down from a committee vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, planned for this Thursday, and pushed a confirmation once seen as inevitable into limbo.

The hearing with Judge Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, a research psychologist in Northern California, sets up a potentially explosive public showdown that carries unmistakable echoes of the 1991 testimony of Anita Hill, who accused the future Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in an episode that riveted the nation and ushered a slew of women into public office. It will play out against the backdrop of the #MeToo movement, which has energized Democratic women across the nation, in an institution, the Senate, that is more than three-quarters male.

Mr. Trump vigorously defended his nominee on Monday, calling him an “outstanding” judge with an unblemished record, and dismissing as “ridiculous” the prospect that Judge Kavanaugh might withdraw his nomination."

Telcoman

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

telcoman wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:41 pm

Not at all suspicious the way women have been treated previously.

Telcoman
So guilt by association, because he's a white male? The alleged incident happened 34 years ago at a party Kavanaugh says he wasn't even at, and is suddenly brought up three days before the confirmation vote?

President Bill Clinton was accused of rape before he was elected to the highest office in the land. If you supported Clinton, you have to support Kavanaugh.

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

California Leads Nation In Poverty But Governor Jerry Brown Launching State Satellite To Monitor Global Warming

California now leads the nation in poverty. Where is Governor Jerry Brown placing his priorities? On fighting global warming, naturally. Like many progressives, the far left governor is obsessed with climate change and is planning to launch a satellite to monitor the situation.

The Daily Caller has the story:

GOV. BROWN IS LAUNCHING CALIFORNIA INTO SPACE — TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING

California Gov. Jerry Brown announced Friday night at the end of a climate summit that the Golden State will launch a satellite into space at some point to monitor the scope of man-made global warming.

Brown has long had to live down the nickname “Moonbeam” after he pushed in the 1970s for California to occupy space. The Democratic governor is now accepting the moniker and pressing forward on a plan to send satellites into orbit to track pollutants.

“With science still under attack and the climate threat growing, we’re launching our own damn satellite,” Brown said in prepared remarks. “This groundbreaking initiative will help governments, businesses and landowners pinpoint — and stop — destructive emissions with unprecedented precision, on a scale that’s never been done before.”

Friday’s Global Climate Action Summit — and President Donald Trump’s nearly two year-long mission to drastically cut Obama-era environmental regulations – likely the rejuvenated Brown’s desire to catapult California to space.

The thousands of people living in homeless camps in Los Angeles and other places throughout the state will probably be very relieved to know Governor Brown is focused like a laser on the big problems.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/0 ... l-warming/

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Rogue One wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:18 pm
. If you supported Clinton, you have to support Kavanaugh.
No I don't!

Clinton was a good president and left us with a budget surplus

Republicans only talk about debt when democrats are in office

Telcoman

User avatar
Bubba1
Moderator
Posts: 18355
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:42 pm
Car: 2003 Nissan 350z
2008 Acura TSX
2008 Toyota Corolla S
2001 Toyota Avalon XLS

Post

Rogue One wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:02 pm
So you're willing to convict him on an allegation made by ONE person, despite 65 women who knew Kavanaugh during those years releasing a letter supporting the character of the Supreme Court nominee?
Ah, so using that logic, if this was an attempted murder accusation instead of attempted sexual assault, and he provided a list of 65 women he did not attempt to murder, that means he's totally innocent and everything is fine? FAIL! ;)

The allegation in question obviously happened decades after the statute of limitations expired, so Mr. Kavanaugh can not be prosecuted or sued civilly about it. BUT that doesn't mean he's innocent. It also doesn't mean he's guilty either. But what it does suggest is that perhaps the RNC should not be in such a big dang rush to confirm this guy before the midterm elections without properly vetting him. That has clearly not been done, given some of the other factors like the thousands of requested documents still being withheld or the 40,000 previously requested documents released to the committee just hours before the opportunity to question him. Remember that? Oh yeah, that. Another "bigly" point, if that third party in the attempted sexual assault accusation confirms her story UNDER OATH, (lying to the press is not technically a crime), that raises a possibility of Mr. Kavanaugh committing perjury during his confirmation hearings, one of those pesky legal details you accuse Howie of ignoring. It appears to me that you might be doing the same thing as Howie just from the other side of the aisle. Food for thought. I say let it all unfold and hear all arguments. Surely you don't find that unreasonable, and I'm not calling you Shirley.

Sadly there is no away to avoid sleazy partisan politics being inserted into these hearings by sleazy partisan politicians. It's what politicians do.

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

^^
Some Republicans are having second thoughts!

Hearing Set for Monday to Hear Kavanaugh and His Accuser

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/us/p ... e=Homepage

"WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, under mounting pressure from senators of his own party, will call President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, and the woman who has accused him of sexual assault before the committee on Monday for extraordinary public hearings only weeks before the midterm elections.

In setting the hearing, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, backed down from a committee vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, planned for this Thursday, and pushed a confirmation once seen as inevitable into limbo.

The hearing with Judge Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, a research psychologist in Northern California, sets up a potentially explosive public showdown that carries unmistakable echoes of the 1991 testimony of Anita Hill, who accused the future Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in an episode that riveted the nation and ushered a slew of women into public office. It will play out against the backdrop of the #MeToo movement, which has energized Democratic women across the United States, in an institution, the Senate, that is more than three-quarters male.

Mr. Trump vigorously defended his nominee on Monday, calling him an “outstanding” judge with an unblemished record, and dismissing as “ridiculous” the prospect that Judge Kavanaugh might withdraw his nomination."

"Ms. Feinstein, meanwhile, accused Republicans of rushing into the hearing to block an investigation into Dr. Blasey’s accusations. “I’m disappointed the F.B.I. and White House are failing to take even the most basic steps to investigate this matter,” she said in a statement issued late Monday."

A through FBI investigation needs to be conducted including interviewing all 65 women that are denying his impropriety in this matter.

Telcoman

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Trump promised to drain the swamp but added another scumbag.

FEMA chief Brock Long is reportedly being investigated for improper use of government vehicles

https://www.businessinsider.com/fema-he ... ort-2018-9

" Federal prosecutors are handling an investigation into FEMA director Brock Long's use of government vehicles. The inquiry stems from concerns about Long driving the vehicles home during off-hours.
The prosecutors will determine whether Long and two other employees using government vehicles to travel from Washington, DC, to his home in North Carolina violated any federal laws.
Long strongly denied any wrongdoing regarding his use of the vehicles, and pushed back on reports he had been asked to resign during a Sunday morning appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Telcoman

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

News not in The York Times

Drudge Report Dragged For Promoting Hit Piece On The Wrong 'Christine Ford'

https://www.yahoo.com/news/drudge-repor ... 28263.html

"Conservative website Drudge Report shared an article on Monday that attempted to smear the credibility of a woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were in high school. But the hit piece, published by another outlet, targeted the wrong person.

Drudge Report tweeted a link to a story published on Grabien News that claimed it had discovered a trove of negative reviews written by former students of a professor named Christine Ford."

Sites such as these are where most on the right obtain their news.

Telcoman

User avatar
Bubba1
Moderator
Posts: 18355
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:42 pm
Car: 2003 Nissan 350z
2008 Acura TSX
2008 Toyota Corolla S
2001 Toyota Avalon XLS

Post

telcoman wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:39 am
^^
Some Republicans are having second thoughts!
I'll believe that when I see it. Based on Congress' track record since Trump took office, the overwhelming majority of the RNC side has been voting closely aligned with the President. At this point I don't see them suddenly flipping with the midterms looming. Sounds more like wishful thinking on your part (and your sources).

And please stop printing your entire links after posting the links unless it's a very very brief summary. People know how click on a link. You've been warned a couple times about this. I'm not kidding.

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

The hearing with Judge Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford is a stalling tactic, plain and simple.

She claims the incident happen when she was 15, yet doesn't remember the year. Additionally Ford claims that after the "attack," which supposedly took place around 1982, that she called a friend on her cell phone to talk about it. She would have had to use a Motorola DynaTAC 8000x, with a retail price of $3,995 (about $9800 in 2018) when it was released in 1984. Judge Kavanaugh graduated high school in 1983.

According to sources Diane Feinstein's reluctance to mention the Kavanaugh accuser's letter during confirmation session is because the accuser sent a similar letter directed at Judge Gorsuch last year. The whereabouts of the earlier letter remain a mystery. https://twitter.com/therealcornett/stat ... 8945900545

If Blasey was 15 when this thing supposedly took place, was Kavanaugh also 15? They were both minors? Meaning that even if the event HAD taken place, and he had been charged with whatever minor charge it would have been (in juvenile court) - it would not have been rape, nor even considered sexual assault back in the 80s…. by now it would have been sealed since it happened when they were minors. What a bloody circus this all is.

The only way to determine the validity of the allegation is to OBJECTIVELY weigh the credibility of the witnesses.

Complainant Ford:

1) Waited 36 years to make a vague allegation ONLY AFTER Kavanaugh was a SCOTUS nominee

2) whose story has changed

3) who cannot name time or place

4) of an unwanted touching over the clothes and mouth

5) who allegedly "passed" an inadmissible lie-detector test only confirming her statement was accurate, not that it was true

6) who claims discomfort in enclosed spaces yet teaches for a living

7) who destroys evidence of her publicly available opinions and motives in advance of her allegations

and

8) who refuses any and all accommodations to timely cooperate with Senate Judiciary Committee while flanked by a high-power politically motivated expensive legal team

Respondent Kavanaugh:

1) denies any and all allegations

2) has been vetted as a Judicial officer since 2006

3) has no known similar complaints, civil or criminal

and

4) cannot prove a negative

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, you are charged with weighing the credibility of the witnesses in this case. You may recall their testimonies and manner in which the testimony was given. You are empowered to use your common sense when determining who you believe is more credible. The complainant has the burden of proof in this case. Is Complainant Ford a credible witness?

NO CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LAWYER WOULD TOUCH THIS CASE WITH A 10 FOOT POLE.

User avatar
Bubba1
Moderator
Posts: 18355
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:42 pm
Car: 2003 Nissan 350z
2008 Acura TSX
2008 Toyota Corolla S
2001 Toyota Avalon XLS

Post

Interesting how clear things appear when viewed through partisan glasses. I agree that its being used as a political tactic, thank you Captain Obvious (j/k), I'm sure the RNC would do the same exact thing as the DNC if the roles reversed. In fact they did just that by refusing to meet with Merrick Garland and keeping the SCOTUS seat vacant for an entire year Now it's rush rush rush to get their guy in before the mid-terms, after which they fear the chances of approving a candidate sympathetic to their causes potentially becomes more difficult.

There are compelling arguments on both sides. You listed some of them on one side, but you completely ignored the other side.

Is Dr. Ford credible? Don't know yet. Since none of us were there or have all the details, it's a pure guess based on what little you've seen/read/heard filtered by your media choice (fox news, I presume?). But there appears to be enough there to at least deserve an investigation. The concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" still requires each side the opportunity to present their evidence. Dr. Ford has yet to get that chance yet many are ready to exonerate Judge Kavanaugh before hearing her side. Sadly, that's politics, not justice. Big difference. A couple of tidbits from her side to provoke some thought.

1. Ford volunteered and took a polygraph test given by an FBI expert and passed it. Not admissible in a court of law, but she's not in court, remember? Passing a polygraph test tends not be something a liar would do.

2. Ford also asked the judicial committee for a non-partisan FBI investigation. Curiously, both Kavanaugh and one of the named witnesses she claimed was physically in the room during the alleged attack refused. And why wasn't that witness subpoenaed? you can lie to the media, but not under oath at a judiciary committee hearing. why no outrage? Could it be your mind is already made up before hearing everything she said?


3.. She's a respected tenured professor, so what's her motive? I haven't heard a legit one yet.

4. The "Me Too" movement has obviously picked up steam in recent years. So more victims have felt empowered to come forward since then. This alleged incident happened years before the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas nastiness. If you'll notice, many of the women who came forward more recently about men like Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein claimed similar criminal acts occurring up to 30 yrs ago as well. Yes, in hindsight, they all should have filed complaints back then (duh!), but if you've read their complaints/stories, there were many reasons behind their decisions not to fight back. And their decisions not to fight doesn't automatically mean it didn't happen. Also, do you think Ford decided to keep it quiet for 30yrs patiently holding it to use as a partisan political weapon at the perfect moment (as suggested by some right leaning folks)? Or perhaps was it something simple like she tried to put behind herself 30+ years ago until the recent intense contentious press coverage of his confirmation made the bad memories come back hard and she decided to finally speak up about her experience? I could keep on going, but I hope you can see my bigger point that there is more than one side to every story and that it's not a crazy concept.

I know what follows might be a difficult concept for partisan folks to digest, but have either of you considered that Ford and Kavanaugh might both be telling the truth? I'm not saying that's the case here but think about it. High school kids + a lotta alcohol = bad things happen. Kavanaugh admitted to binge drinking regularly in HS. is it possible he drank way too much on one fateful day and tried to force himself on a non-consenting naiive girl? And then not remember doing it the next morning after he sobered up? He was not a 50 yr old married judge back in HS, he was a teen with an alcohol problem. fwiw I was an RA (house manager) in college and ran into that kinda alcohol "amnesia" stuff regularly. most of the incidents involved stuff like urinating in someone's closet or stolen things, but not sexual assault. That's seriously bad. My RA job involved slightly more mature later teens/early 20s in a coed environment. This particular case involves even less experienced, immature middle teens making it seem more plausible. Just food for thought. In any case I say let the facts come out, and then decide.

Okay flame away.

User avatar
Bubba1
Moderator
Posts: 18355
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:42 pm
Car: 2003 Nissan 350z
2008 Acura TSX
2008 Toyota Corolla S
2001 Toyota Avalon XLS

Post

Oh, and regarding if crimes committed as a teenager should potentially follow you as an adult. I believe it all depends on the crime. If you're talking about petty stuff like a parking ticket or getting caught smokin' in the boys room in high school, no. BUT if it's a serious felony like murder or attempted rape? Yes, absolutely. I think It should stay on your record. Shockingly those were considered serious crimes even in the 1980's. :facepalm: More accurate to say fewer of the incidents got reported or prosecuted back then. Doesn't mean the crimes didn't happen. And those felonies should be disqualifying for a seat on the Supreme Court. Or do you feel it only applies to candidates nominated by the "other" party? This is why the vetting process is so important, especially for a life-long appointment like SCOTUS.

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

I'll keep my reply simple. Google 'Devil's Advocate'.

User avatar
Bubba1
Moderator
Posts: 18355
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:42 pm
Car: 2003 Nissan 350z
2008 Acura TSX
2008 Toyota Corolla S
2001 Toyota Avalon XLS

Post

Rogue One wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:34 pm
I'll keep my reply simple. Google 'Devil's Advocate'.
LOL. Let's see, overnight last night news broke about a 2nd woman alleging similar drunken behavior by Mr. Kavanaugh. You've already concluded Mr. Kavanaugh is innocent, and I suggested letting the facts unfold before deciding. Perhaps you should google "drink the kool aid". :)

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

Image

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

Bubba1 wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:21 am
LOL. Let's see, overnight last night news broke about a 2nd woman alleging similar drunken behavior by Mr. Kavanaugh. You've already concluded Mr. Kavanaugh is innocent, and I suggested letting the facts unfold before deciding. Perhaps you should google "drink the kool aid". :)
Image

OMG, it's not from Fox News!!
Image

User avatar
Ace2cool
Posts: 12672
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:21 pm
Car: 1991 Nissan 300ZX TT
1966 Datsun Fairlady 1600
2005 Suzuki GSX-R 600
1974 Honda CB550 Four
2009 Ford F150 Lariat
Location: Murfreesboro, TN

Post

I tend to stay out of conversations round these parts, because I think republicans and democrats are two sides of the same coin, and it doesn't matter who is in office for the most part. Both sides are filled with idiots and good people alike. I do feel that I can add to this convo, though.

As a law enforcement professional, I can't help but look at this from a matter of probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion. I can't even find enough in the statements that have been made to even state that there is reasonable suspicion that a crime was even committed, much less the probable cause needed to even made a custodial arrest, issue warrants, or secure a grand jury indictment. Granted, I'm not privy to every detail of the discussion, but even then, there's no way in hell that anyone could possibly move forward on an indictment on this. No DA in their right mind would even remotely consider prosecuting this case. It's paper-thin and entirely hearsay from the inception, and that's before what would undoubtedly be the best defense since OJ Simpson begins their cross examination of facts. I'd be amazed to see it pass a grand jury presentation, and TBH, grand jury is a joke. I could get an indictment on the chair I'm sitting in for theft, but I'd honestly be surprised if a jury voted to indict on this ridiculous sideshow of a case, even based on the fact that the jury only hears from the prosecution side in the presentation, with no defense arguments. Why would she wait until a senate judiciary hearing to bring this allegation up? I'll bet if you watch her finances carefully, some kind of anomaly will pop up, and soon. If she walked into my police station and said all this, I'd do my duty as a law enforcement professional, and take the report, and even go as far as to present the facts to the grand jury impartially, but I'd say it would be nigh impossible to see a jury voting this into a court.

Even then, IF the case moved into court (and again, that is a longshot), the defense would be able to pick it apart, little by little, and the standard for a conviction, short of a confession, if irrefutable proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed, and that the defendant was the person who committed it. Can any of you say, based on the information available to the public on this incident, say that there is no reasonable doubt that this crime may have not been committed? Didn't think so. So now, moving forward, I have to ask why this is even being entertained? If there effectively is no criminal action that took place, then why is this even being considered? It's the same dog and pony show that happens every time a new justice is appointed. The "that's not OUR guy, and our ENEMY is appointing them, so we need to do everything we can to stand in the way of this nomination!!!!" Republicans did it, now democrats, and the next democratic nomination, it'll be the same thing all over again from the republicans. "Us vs. them" is killing this country.

Effectively, if this woman really wanted actionable justice taken against Kavanaugh, she wouldn't be blasting this all over the media. She'd keep her information low-key, seek an indictment, and move forward with prosecution, out of media light. There is next to zero chance of prosecution with all that has been put on blast in the media, but even then, there does not seem to be any criminal action being sought. This is nothing but a mud-slinging slander campaign.

Partisan politics is disgusting.

User avatar
Bubba1
Moderator
Posts: 18355
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:42 pm
Car: 2003 Nissan 350z
2008 Acura TSX
2008 Toyota Corolla S
2001 Toyota Avalon XLS

Post

Ah, using that logic, the only people that knew of "Deep Throat" were Bob woodward and Carl Bernstein of the wash post. So if the NYTimes asked dozens of people and they still had no idea who Deep throat was, you thus conclude Watergate was thus fake news. C'mon. just because the NYT can't confirm, doesn't mean it didn't happen.


The 2nd allegation (and that's all it is, just an allegation),suggests once again that not all the facts are out there making an investigation even more appropriate. That's common sense. Let it unfold.

User avatar
RCA
Posts: 8226
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:09 am

Post

Ace2cool wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:51 pm
As a law enforcement professional
I think Ace brings up a good point.
From a LE perspective there is little to do here.

Should that be the only information worth taking into consideration?

At this point getting all the facts in order to make a value judgement is what needs to happen here. If 30 years later you find an email admitting to a crime and then a photo of the killer with the weapon you might not be able to arrest that person but should you place them in the supreme court? <-- Just an example.

Should you vote to put someone into the supreme court if they raped someone?
Should you vote to put someone into the supreme court there is a 90% chance they raped someone? 50% chance they raped someone?

After all that why not just find someone similarly qualified who doesn't have accusers of rape in their past? What's the rush? This justice pick will be around for the next 50yrs, it's ok to wait until an investigation or even just putting forth a new judge. Even if the investigation doesn't lead to an arrest it could cement details that either person stated in their testimony. Avoiding the he-said she-said matters when voting on a supreme court justice.

What I don't understand if people like Grassley, Lindsey Graham, and Mitch McConnell who have already made public statements saying that it won't matter what Dr. Ford says they are voting in Kavanaugh. It's a fake vetting process in that case which would make Kavanaugh's approval invalid.

Even if Dems are stalling, the reasons for doing so are valid to the vetting process and the claims are credible, while the reasons for speeding up are...?

User avatar
Ace2cool
Posts: 12672
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:21 pm
Car: 1991 Nissan 300ZX TT
1966 Datsun Fairlady 1600
2005 Suzuki GSX-R 600
1974 Honda CB550 Four
2009 Ford F150 Lariat
Location: Murfreesboro, TN

Post

Bubba1 wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:20 pm
Ah, using that logic, the only people that knew of "Deep Throat" were Bob woodward and Carl Bernstein of the wash post. So if the NYTimes asked dozens of people and they still had no idea who Deep throat was, you thus conclude Watergate was thus fake news. C'mon. just because the NYT can't confirm, doesn't mean it didn't happen.


The 2nd allegation (and that's all it is, just an allegation),suggests once again that not all the facts are out there making an investigation even more appropriate. That's common sense. Let it unfold.
A quick scan over the wikipedia article states:
The scandal also resulted in the indictment of 69 people, with trials or pleas resulting in 48 being found guilty, many of whom were top Nixon officials.
Quantifiable. Prosecutable. Tangible. Evidential. All things that this case is not.
RCA wrote:Avoiding the he-said she-said matters when voting on a supreme court justice.
That's literally the entire basis of this hearing. He-said she-said.

If your entire basis for not moving forward with this individual is the fact that someone SAYS he did something DECADES ago, and the fact that MAYBE something evidential COULD POSSIBLY show up YEARS from now, then what kind of dystopia are we living in? One where all we have to do to get back at someone we don't like is say they committed a crime that can in no way be corroborated in favor of either party?
After all that why not just find someone similarly qualified who doesn't have accusers of rape in their past?
Read that, and put yourself in Kavanaugh's shoes. Or better yet, this guy's shoes.

User avatar
Bubba1
Moderator
Posts: 18355
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:42 pm
Car: 2003 Nissan 350z
2008 Acura TSX
2008 Toyota Corolla S
2001 Toyota Avalon XLS

Post

Agree. One needs to keep in mind, at the end of the day, the judiciary committee hearings for SCOTUS, is an unusual type of job interview, it's not criminal court. Although interviewees are giving sworn testimony, the burden of proof standard for allegations is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" like criminal court. Ironically It's presided over and voted on by criminals...oops, I meant politicians.. So there is a glaring and strong political side to it that cannot be dismissed or ignored only when it suits your cause. This is why any allegations that turn up during a very high profile vetting process must be investigated (regardless of the party that nominated the candidate) and should not be rushed until the facts are revealed. If they're pure political hatchet jobs, an unbiased investigation will figure that out, This is a lifetime appoint, not a 2 yr term. It's big deal. Curiously, if Mr. Kavanaugh feels so strongly about his innocence, why doesn't he insist on a non-biased investigation like Dr. Ford? Given a 3rd accuser has appeared overnight about Kavanaugh, (Stormy Daniels' lawyer just announced another one), at this point, it's more than enough to warrant investigation. Sadly non-partisan does not exist on the judiciary committee, but there is this little organization called the "FBI" that does. I think Ace's last sentence pretty much sums it up about the politics involved. Both sides do it regularly. But in this one specific case, one side seems to have a logical reason to investigate, the other does not have any reason for rushing it thru without investigation other than partisan political advantage. And it's supposed to be country before party, not the reverse.

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

Bubba, your partisanship is showing.
Bubba1 wrote:
Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:56 am
...any allegations that turn up during a very high profile vetting process must be investigated (regardless of the party that nominated the candidate) and should not be rushed until the facts are revealed...
It's not being rushed. In point of fact it's been delayed despite the lack of evidence.
Bubba1 wrote:
Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:56 am
...it's more than enough to warrant investigation. Sadly non-partisan does not exist on the judiciary committee, but there is this little organization called the "FBI" that does...
There's nothing for the FBI, nor anyone else to investigate. So far two people have made allegations that cannot be corroborated/substantiated. At the end of the day, all they’re doing is just making a mockery of real sexual assault victims.
Bubba1 wrote:
Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:56 am
...Given a 3rd accuser has appeared overnight about Kavanaugh, (Stormy Daniels' lawyer just announced another one)...
I admit that I am the third victim. It all started at a NXIVM Party when Hillary Clinton and Kristin Gillibrand started touching my naughty bits. Stormy and Judge Kavanaugh started to as well but, upon seeing my distress (which was only due to Hillary's involvment) The Judge and Stormy said, "Hey Hill, can't you see he's not digging you?" To which she replied (in an abnormally low, loud, and slightly distorted voice), "ALL SHALL DIG ME!!!" She then immediately began chanting to Molloch and a small child was brought out and...I passed out. It happened. I promise. I MUST BE BELIEVED! How dare you question a victim.

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

Bubba1 wrote:
Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:56 am
...Given a 3rd accuser has appeared overnight about Kavanaugh, (Stormy Daniels' lawyer just announced another one)...
Michael Avenatti is trying to insert himself back into the news cycle, this time by insisting he has secret knowledge of Brett Kavanaugh gang raping women at a torture chamber he ran as a student in Washington, D.C. He's also suggested Kavanaugh made Satanic references in his senior yearbook quote. :ohno:

HOWEVER...
4chan is now claiming they trolled Avenatti into thinking he had a client who would testify against Kavanaugh and they came up with all sorts of ridiculous claims to see if he would really say it. :lolling:

MEANWHILE...
Judge appears likely to toss Stormy Daniels' defamation suit

AND...
The Kavanaugh Circus Could Destroy the Me Too Movement
These are salacious claims launched without verification and wielded by those with no interest in the truth.

User avatar
RCA
Posts: 8226
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:09 am

Post

Ace2cool wrote:
Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:48 am
RCA wrote:Avoiding the he-said she-said matters when voting on a supreme court justice.
That's literally the entire basis of this hearing. He-said she-said.

If your entire basis for not moving forward with this individual is the fact that someone SAYS he did something DECADES ago, and the fact that MAYBE something evidential COULD POSSIBLY show up YEARS from now, then what kind of dystopia are we living in? One where all we have to do to get back at someone we don't like is say they committed a crime that can in no way be corroborated in favor of either party?
After all that why not just find someone similarly qualified who doesn't have accusers of rape in their past?
Read that, and put yourself in Kavanaugh's shoes. Or better yet, this guy's shoes.
So just a heads up I don't think every claim should be taken seriously unless there is some evidence of it's validity.

I doubt Dr. Ford was a "Soros sleeper cell" plant who's plan was to defame Kavanaugh just as he entered the supreme court by speaking to her therapist and husband years before Kavanaugh was mentioned for the SCOTUS. Then spoke to WaPo as his name was being mentioned as a potential SCOTUS nominee. Only to come out now.

Dr. Ford's situation has much more validity than just saying "he raped me".
I would agree with you Ace if say Dr. Ford's claim was just words, but they are much more than that and equating her claims to some no body looking for attention is not arguing in good faith. If you can honestly refute her claims or describe why they aren't valid or could never be valid then I would be willing to change my stance but repeating what I have been hearing on Fox and social media isn't going to be enough.

We can't possibly investigate and find any relevant information and we shouldn't even try. That logic is sad.
It reminds me when you deal with cashiers and they tell you "I can't do that", then you let them know your friends with their boss and all of a sudden the clouds clear and sh*t gets done.

Context is everything and in this case Dr. Ford is credible and we should avoid the he-said she-said as much as possible. Investigate their claims to see who's version of the story is more truthful than the others.
Ace2cool wrote:
Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:48 am
RCA wrote:After all that why not just find someone similarly qualified who doesn't have accusers of rape in their past?
Read that, and put yourself in Kavanaugh's shoes. Or better yet, this guy's shoes.
There is a difference here.

Danny Kay lost his right to freedom and so the he-said she-said shouldn't have been enough to jail this person.

Kavanaugh doesn't have a right to be SCOTUS and if we look into the claims and find that he most likely attempted to rape Dr. Ford I don't think he should be jailed but I do think at the very least he shouldn't become a member of the SCOTUS.

I understand what you're saying though we need more concrete evidence to convict someone but in the case of SCOTUS nominee we can have a nuanced opinion and come to a conclusion with a percentage of whether or not he might have behaved this way then vote on if it's acceptable for someone we think probably raped some should be a member of SCOTUS.

It ultimately goes down to this:
  • Should you vote to put someone into the supreme court if they raped someone? Yes or No
  • Should you vote to put someone into the supreme court there is a 90% chance they raped someone? Yes or No
  • 50% chance they raped someone? Yes or No
Some people think you can be a SCOTUS member even if you raped someone.
Some people think you can be a SCOTUS member if the likely hood is >75%
Etc...

I do not think that someone who rapes should be a SCOTUS member and right now I think Ford is more credible than Kavanaugh but I would like to hear their testimony and have a further investigation to look into whether they are telling the truth.


Return to “Politics Etc.”