What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (1 Viewer)

Some more detail on what was posted earlier:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/22/1797929/-Senate-panel-lawyers-for-Dr-Ford-tentatively-agree-she-ll-testify-about-Kavanaugh-Thursday

Senate panel & lawyers for Dr. Ford tentatively agree she'll testify about Kavanaugh Thursday

The New York Times reports that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford will, tentatively, testify Thursday about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged attempt to rape her when they were teenagers:

The Senate Judiciary Committee and lawyers for the woman who has accused Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers reached a tentative agreement on Saturday for her to publicly testify on Thursday, an apparent breakthrough in halting negotiations.

After a brief call late on Saturday, the lawyers and aides to Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, planned to talk again Sunday morning to continue negotiations over the conditions of the testimony, according to three people familiar with the call. Aides to Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee’s top Democrat, were also involved.

 
It's gonna be a pretty tough sell to women that pregnancy doesn't have anything to do with a woman's body. 
I can’t fully speak for Mr. Sand but I think we reasonably assume he means it’s about speaking out/caring for the life that has no voice for itself not the diabolically framed, “I MUST FULLY CONTROL ALL WOMEN’S BODIES *cackle*” :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can’t fully speak for Mr. Sand but I think we reasonably assume he means it’s about speaking out/caring for the life that has no voice for itself not the diabolically framed, “I MUST FULLY CONTROL ALL WOMEN’S BODIES *cackle*” :shrug:
Who's "we"?

And is it really a "cackle"? Albeit, you've exaggerated it a bit...

 
Sure. That's reasonable. But you're still proponents of forced birth, and that's absolutely controlling a woman's body whether or not it's the motivation behind your belief or not. 
Sure.  As always it’s how hostile you want the language to be...it’s the pro-choicers version of “baby killer”. Whatever

 
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to use a term that offended you. What term would you prefer I use for using the force of law to make sure a woman keeps her baby to term and delivers it?
‘You’ didn’t do anything...I was helping Sand clarify his sentence which on its own sounded silly.

 
Normally, this analysis would be exactly right.  If Nominee A is compromised, just yank him and send up Nominee B.  But in the actual world that we live in, Nominee B has no chance of being confirmed if the Democrats take the Senate.  So Rs are being given the choice of confirm the lousy nominee or lose the seat to the blue tribe.  That's what's driving much of this.

Obviously much of this is the red tribe's doing.  The blue tribe's thirst for revenge isn't helping.
I dont think the GOP has any real concerns about losing the senate.  Better safe than sorry though, I guess. 

 
‘You’ didn’t do anything...I was helping Sand clarify his sentence which on its own sounded silly.
I found it to be succinct.  These guys are (mostly) smart enough to know what's what.  Guys like Henry respond just to poke and create a kerfuffle (<---Note: nothing wrong with that).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I found it to be succinct.  These guys are (mostly) smart enough to know what's what.  Guys like Henry respond just to poke and create a kerfuffle (<---Note: nothing wrong with that).
I do not respond just to poke and create a kerfuffle.  I respect your right to your opinion, I am not a fan of abortion and it would probably end any romantic relationship I’ve ever been in if a woman I was with had one while we were together, but I do tend to feel that banning abortion is analogous to enslaving women.  I try to get that viewpoint across as inoffensively as possible. 

 
Ford’s friend who was at the party with her has no recollection of the party and states she doesn’t know Kavanaugh.

To me, this really brings into question all the rumblings about there being a buzz around school right after the alleged incident. 
Yes. But I never thought the “buzz” story made sense according to what Ford has said. Plus it came from a deleted Facebook post.

Ford’s friend not remembering anything about this party is going to give Collins, Murkowski, and other Republicans who might have been on the fence enough cover to vote to confirm.

 
Ford’s friend who was at the party with her has no recollection of the party and states she doesn’t know Kavanaugh.

To me, this really brings into question all the rumblings about there being a buzz around school right after the alleged incident. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/22/politics/kavanaugh-ford-accuser-nomination/index.html
Wait, so there is time to do an investigation?  Let’s get these people interviewed by the FBI. 

 
Ford’s friend who was at the party with her has no recollection of the party and states she doesn’t know Kavanaugh.

To me, this really brings into question all the rumblings about there being a buzz around school right after the alleged incident. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/22/politics/kavanaugh-ford-accuser-nomination/index.html
I never gave the "buzz" story any credibility to begin with.  It wasn't consistent with Ford's account and got retracted nearly immediately.

However, the story originally was that there were four boys at this party, plus Ford.  Now all of the sudden there's another girl there.  That's not a huge issue, but it is a change.  If only there were some kind of bureau, perhaps at the federal level, that could investigate this thing.

 
I never gave the "buzz" story any credibility to begin with.  It wasn't consistent with Ford's account and got retracted nearly immediately.

However, the story originally was that there were four boys at this party, plus Ford.  Now all of the sudden there's another girl there.  That's not a huge issue, but it is a change.  If only there were some kind of bureau, perhaps at the federal level, that could investigate this thing.
I thought i had read very early on that i had heard there were four boys and two girls. I had said something about that and it was questioned and i could not find the link. I wasnt too hung up on the detail so i didnt really look that hard and figured i could have easily been confused by the whole therapist note discrepancy. 

 
Ford’s friend who was at the party with her has no recollection of the party and states she doesn’t know Kavanaugh.

To me, this really brings into question all the rumblings about there being a buzz around school right after the alleged incident. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/22/politics/kavanaugh-ford-accuser-nomination/index.html
Five people were at this party?

>>In a brief interview at her home in Silver Spring, Keyser said that she did not recall the party, but that she was close friends with Ford and that she believes Ford’s allegation. 

Before her name became public, Ford told The Post she did not think Keyser would remember the party because nothing remarkable had happened there, as far as Keyser was aware. Ford has said she did not tell anyone about the alleged assault until 2012.<<

- From the linked WaPo story.

There’s nothing Dem or GOP about this story. There’s no reason for Trump critics to mostly believe Ford and for Trump supporters to mostly disbelieve her. This is obviously something that takes more investigation to figure out what went on. I will say 5 people is hardly what I would ordinarily call a party, I was imagining something much larger and more raucous.

 
It’s also interesting that Keyser says she doesn’t “know” Kavanaugh. I’d like to see a diagram of the five people connecting who claims to “know” whom.

 
It’s also interesting that Keyser says she doesn’t “know” Kavanaugh. I’d like to see a diagram of the five people connecting who claims to “know” whom.
Yeah, I'm trying to avoid getting too worked up over every little twist and turn in this story.  But as I think it about, it seems like this is possibly a big deal.  

Brett Kavanaugh has an obvious incentive to lie.  So does Mark Judge, who isn't even reliable to begin with.  I don't know enough about the "PJ" person to have an opinion about him, and I don't see it as noteworthy that he doesn't remember a party that would have been just another get-together for him.  

I do find it noteworthy that a lifelong friend of Ford says that not only does she not recall this party (again, not surprising) but that she doesn't even know Brett Kavanaugh.  This is coming from someone who says she believes Ford's accusation, is a personal friend of her's, and is apparently a Democrat.  This is somebody who has every reason to weigh in on behalf of Ford, and instead she's adding a detail that seems pretty exculpatory to me.

 
I never gave the "buzz" story any credibility to begin with.  It wasn't consistent with Ford's account and got retracted nearly immediately.

However, the story originally was that there were four boys at this party, plus Ford.  Now all of the sudden there's another girl there.  That's not a huge issue, but it is a change.  If only there were some kind of bureau, perhaps at the federal level, that could investigate this thing.
The psychiatrist's notes said Ford said there were 4 boys in the room, and Ford corrected that by saying that it was a misunderstanding and actually there were 4 boys at the party. Now there were 3 boys, 2 girls (including Ford).

I'm also wondering what Ford says about her leaving the party. It makes total sense to me that a girl would go with a girlfriend to a pool party (talking HS here). It's not clear if Ford left with Keyser or if she simply left and in doing so left Keyser. And if she up and left she must have been very flustered and upset after what happened. It seems to me Keyser would either remember Ford leaving her alone at a party with 3 guys she didn't know (including it would later turn out 2 who had just assaulted Ford) or Keyser would remember abruptly leaving with a very disturbed Ford. It's more than possible Ford left with Keyser and masked what had happened, maybe out of fear or misplaced shame, but that just needs to be explained.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
it appears someone communicated her name to Whelan before it was made public. (Last Sunday, “Ford alerted an associate via email that Whelan had looked at her LinkedIn page, according to the email, which was reviewed by The Post. LinkedIn allows some subscribers to see who views their pages. Ford sent the email about 90 minutes after The Post shared her name with a White House spokesman and hours before her identity was revealed in a story posted on its website.”
Huh.  Ford's name is shared with the WH before article publishes.  Someone immediately contacts Whelan who immediately views her LinkedIn Page and then coordinates with a conservative hatchet-job PR firm to defame an innocent man and divert attention away from Kavanaugh.

Seems like we'd better get to the bottom of that before we confirm.  Put The Post reporter and Whelan under oath in front of the committee to find out who told him and what Kavanaugh knew about the scheme.

Would certainly be grounds for Impeachment if Kavanaugh denies involvement and it was later shown that he was in the middle of it.  Exactly how did the WH know to contact Kavanaugh's friend (Whelan) in the first place?

(Can't believe Republicans haven't ditched the cement boots yet.  The water is rising and there's still a lot of rain to fall.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I'm trying to avoid getting too worked up over every little twist and turn in this story.  But as I think it about, it seems like this is possibly a big deal.  

Brett Kavanaugh has an obvious incentive to lie.  So does Mark Judge, who isn't even reliable to begin with.  I don't know enough about the "PJ" person to have an opinion about him, and I don't see it as noteworthy that he doesn't remember a party that would have been just another get-together for him.  

I do find it noteworthy that a lifelong friend of Ford says that not only does she not recall this party (again, not surprising) but that she doesn't even know Brett Kavanaugh.  This is coming from someone who says she believes Ford's accusation, is a personal friend of her's, and is apparently a Democrat.  This is somebody who has every reason to weigh in on behalf of Ford, and instead she's adding a detail that seems pretty exculpatory to me.
Has that swayed your opinion any?

 
 I do find it noteworthy that a lifelong friend of Ford says that not only does she not recall this party (again, not surprising) but that she doesn't even know Brett Kavanaugh.  This is coming from someone who says she believes Ford's accusation, is a personal friend of her's, and is apparently a Democrat.  This is somebody who has every reason to weigh in on behalf of Ford, and instead she's adding a detail that seems pretty exculpatory to me.
You have to remember that these kids did not go to school together.  So lots of parties are at peoples homes who you don’t really know, as compared to coed HS where you see the people every day.  

 
Huh.  Ford's name is shared with the WH before article publishes.  Someone immediately contacts Whelan who immediately views her LinkedIn Page and then coordinates with a conservative hatchet-job PR firm to defame an innocent man and divert attention away from Kavanaugh.

Seems like we'd better get to the bottom of that before we confirm.  Put The Post reporter and Whelan under oath in front of the committee to find out who told him and what Kavanaugh knew about the scheme.

Would certainly be grounds for Impeachment if Kavanaugh denies involvement and it was later shown that he was in the middle of it.  Exactly how did the WH know to contact Kavanaugh's friend (Whelan) in the first place?

(Can't believe Republicans haven't ditched the cement boots yet.  The water is rising and there's still a lot of rain to fall.)
Story broke on Thursday where we found out that it was somebody that lives in the bay area and is affiliated with Stanford and knew kavanaugh from high school. How hard would it be for somebody inside Kavanaugh's circle to find a woman on linkedin with that criteria before sunday evening? I think he should be asked some questions about it to be sure, but definitely not as damning as many people are making it seem. 

 
Like Ivan, I’m also trying to stay away from the everyday “news”, as very little is actual news. 

By far the most important piece of evidence thus far is the note from the therapist back in 2012.  

 
Given there is very little else to grab onto this is true.
Kavanaugh’s pattern of behavior of not telling the truth and his handlers’ pattern of behavior of concealing information at every opportunity should be compelling.

Dr. Ford’s pattern of behavior consistent with someone who was the victim of sexual assault, and taking the steps consistent with someone telling the truth should be compelling.

Remember, the prupose here isn’t to determine if there’s enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh of a crime.  The purpose here is to determine if Kavanaugh has the character to serve on the Supreme Court.  

The people who nominated Kavanaugh are all acting like they know he lacks the necessary character.  That should be enough to drop him even if we’d never heard about Dr. Ford.  Dr. Ford’s story is running up the score against Kavanaugh in this confrimation process.

 
I don’t know if we want to to set a precedent where one accusation with zero corroboration is enough to block the confirmation of an otherwise highly qualified judge.
I don’t want to, either.  Fortunately, that’s not even remotely close to what’s going on here.  

If you have to tell lies like this and can’t stick to the truth, it’s time to throw this nominee back and find another one. 

 
Matthias said:
I'm not sure how Republicans are holding onto the doublespeak ideas of this investigation being flawed because there's no evidence but that conducting an investigation to see what evidence could be uncovered is a waste of time.
New to Republican ideas?  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top