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 (2 Viewers)

Can you read henry?

Miss you in the other thread Henry.
it is your poor spelling, lack of syntax and terrible grammar.  people normally let that sort of thing slide on these boards because it is sort of dickish to call people out on minor stuff like that.  but when you call someone out for their pathetic posts and then post this, well, i suspect you're going to get it.

having said that please google (which I know you love to do) how to properly use an apostrophe.  you never seem to get it right.

cheers.

 
Susan Collins wants Kavanaugh's lawyer to be able to cross-examine Ford (and Ford's lawyer to cross-examine Kavanaugh). Republicans remain baffled as to why Ford hasn't jumped at the chance to appear

But at least they have plenty of time to prepare Kavanaugh's lawyer in attacking, or plenty of time to get him to hire a lawyer who's good at it.. I wonder how much money the Republicans have to spend on this (the party, the outside groups supporting them), and how much Ford has tucked away for it.

It's almost like they don't want her to talk, and want to punish her if she does.
I switched from defense work to Prosecution after victimizing a victim on the stand.  I tore her apart, he got off, and he did it again, allegedly.  I could not forgive myself for what I did.  Lots of folks tried to convince me it was my job, he had a constitutional right to a defense, the judge was there to keep things proper, the system doesn't work without zealous advocacy, yada, yada, yada.  All I knew is I victimized her as surely as if I had physically assaulted her violently in a dark alley, and he got off of the charges, got off on getting off on the charges, and he did it again, allegedly,  to another young woman who deserved far better.

30 years and I still cannot forgive myself for what I did.

 
Appearing on conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt’s radio show on Tuesday, Grassley was asked whether Ford might be subjected to “insensitivity or indifference” from the Judiciary Committee’s all-white, all-male Republican members if she testifies before them.

Here is Grassley’s response in full (you can hear the full exchange beginning at the 5:45 mark here):

Well, journalists are very insensitive to Chuck Grassley, because I’m the only chairman when it says Chairman Grassley, chairman of the aging, or chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 84 years old, they never say that [Lamar] Alexander, chairman of the Health Committee, is 64 years old [ed. note: Alexander is actually 78 years old]. So there’s already discrimination against me, so there is a possible discrimination out there. And we have to consider all those things. We hope that everyone in the room treats the hearing with the seriousness that it deserves, and including the public.
Chuck Grassley is the victim.

 
I switched from defense work to Prosecution after victimizing a victim on the stand.  I tore her apart, he got off, and he did it again, allegedly.  I could not forgive myself for what I did.  Lots of folks tried to convince me it was my job, he had a constitutional right to a defense, the judge was there to keep things proper, the system doesn't work without zealous advocacy, yada, yada, yada.  All I knew is I victimized her as surely as if I had physically assaulted her violently in a dark alley, and he got off of the charges, got off on getting off on the charges, and he did it again, allegedly,  to another young woman who deserved far better.

30 years and I still cannot forgive myself for what I did.
That’s why people can relate to Dexter. Feel good that it had an impact on you and you didn’t just say “man but my 401k looked great after that case.” Sounds like you’re a good person.

 
I don't think an article about false rape reports citing criminal statistics is relevant to stories involving reports that are over 30 years old. 
I think you should read the article again. It discussed the commonalities and archetypes of women who lie about rape. This case doesn't resemble any of them.

 
Perkins asserts that he has never met Kavanaugh and did not attend the Harvard BLSA event with the judge that is referenced in the letter. 

“Several of the other past presidents who are listed in that letter have also confirmed their names were listed without their consent,” he stated to The Shreveport Times.

 
I switched from defense work to Prosecution after victimizing a victim on the stand.  I tore her apart, he got off, and he did it again, allegedly.  I could not forgive myself for what I did.  Lots of folks tried to convince me it was my job, he had a constitutional right to a defense, the judge was there to keep things proper, the system doesn't work without zealous advocacy, yada, yada, yada.  All I knew is I victimized her as surely as if I had physically assaulted her violently in a dark alley, and he got off of the charges, got off on getting off on the charges, and he did it again, allegedly,  to another young woman who deserved far better.

30 years and I still cannot forgive myself for what I did.
Forgiveness may be the wrong word, I don't know.  But recognition of having to be a different person changed a lot of lives when you prosecuted.  

If our hearts are balanced against a feather at the end, we're all in trouble.  If the test is the balance of our deeds, I'll be asking you for a reference to get into the good place.

 
Did the user in the middle of a big run of complaining about others spreading lies just say the Central Park Five were guilty?
Same poster that has been busted lying many times in his short time in this board. Including spreading the foreclosure lie in here (multiple times) after it had already been pointed out as false.

 
Forgiveness may be the wrong word, I don't know.  But recognition of having to be a different person changed a lot of lives when you prosecuted.  

If our hearts are balanced against a feather at the end, we're all in trouble.  If the test is the balance of our deeds, I'll be asking you for a reference to get into the good place.
I appreciate the kind words but I deserve to be damned.  I enjoyed it while I did it.  The issue in that trial, for me, was not about him, her, or truth or justice, it was about me proving I was smarter than the Prosecutor who I loathed for reasons I can no longer even recall.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I appreciate the kind words but I deserve to be damned.  I enjoyed it while I did it.  The issue in that trial, for me, was not about him, her or truth or justice, it was about me proving I was smarter than the Prosecutor who I loathed for reasons I can no longer even recall.
Sounds like you recognized you had to be a different person after that.

Wait, that's what I said before.  

 
bigbottom said:
For me, it’s not about “abstract considerations of proper behavior.”  It’s about whether I support violating the Constitution. I didn’t when it was the GOP blocking Garland’s nomination, and I won’t if and when it’s the Dems seeking to violate the Constitution, whether it’s meant to be a ### for tat because both sides do it, or if it is a more noble effort to restore symmetry. 
There are certain Cardinal Rules of life.

1)  Treat others as you would wish to be treated.

2)  You will reap what you sow.

When the pubs refused to even consider Garland they laid the groundwork for inevitable and justified retribution (disregarding that Kavanaugh looks to be an attempted rapist).  More importantly, though, they failed to fulfill their Constitutional duty and, in so doing, destroyed the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.  Permanently.  There is no coming back from what they have done. 

 
Subpoena to testify?  

Takes the fifth?
The bigger issue is that Professor Ford still hasn't responded. Her attorney said yesterday that she was willing to testify, but no response once the invitation was offered. So we still don't know if Monday is going to happen. 

 
To be fair this was second hand and I don't trust Hatch to relay what the candidate said accurately.  I'd rather hear it straight from him.
I posted what Hatch said earlier in the thread. Hatch didn’t say Kavanaugh told him he wasn’t at that party.

 
Forgiveness may be the wrong word, I don't know.  But recognition of having to be a different person changed a lot of lives when you prosecuted.  

If our hearts are balanced against a feather at the end, we're all in trouble.  If the test is the balance of our deeds, I'll be asking you for a reference to get into the good place.
Don't worry, I got you. I'll just tell Michael you're the bomb and that you got a dope soul and hella ethics.

 
Do you mean at the party or just in the room? I thought I read somewhere that there were 4 boys and two other girls there, but I am not finding that so I might just be mixing things up. 
The therapist’s notes said there were four in the room.  Ford says she told the therapist there were only two in the room and the therapist wrote it down wrong.

 
The bigger issue is that Professor Ford still hasn't responded. Her attorney said yesterday that she was willing to testify, but no response once the invitation was offered. So we still don't know if Monday is going to happen. 
Given that her attorney has already said she is prepared to do "anything", it looks bad that she has not responded.  I'm sure she now wishes she would have never sent the letter in the first place.  I am totally sympathetic to that view.  The magnitude of what is about to happen to her must be a lot to take in.  Especially at the speed that this thing is moving.  nightmare.

but she has already said that she will do it.  "anything".  She has to testify or this thing dies a quick death.

 
The therapist’s notes said there were four in the room.  Ford says she told the therapist there were only two in the room and the therapist wrote it down wrong.
She said she told the therapist there were four boys at the party and two took part in the assault.

 
Because you took one quote out of the middle of a conversation. 

You asked a question and I replied. You asked the same question again and I replied. You then just tried to use that second reply out of context to twist my stance on this manner which has been very consistent. 

I didnt exactly call my shot here, but pretty darn close since I actually said in that conversation replying to a different question of yours that it looked like some wordsmithing was on the way from you. 
So you twisted the truth in your efforts to try to show that I twisted something, and such behavior is supposed to be wrong?  

You also might want to look up “wordsmith” before using it that way again.  Certainly there’s a better word to use in that spot, something that actually carries the negative connotation you’re so desperately implying with it.  

BTW, you would have come off better in this exchange had you actually explained that you care if Dr. Ford is trying to tell the truth or not.  By attacking me and continuing with your dissertation about flawed memory instead of addressing the actual point of contention, you ended up making my point for me, which I’m sure was not your intent.  

 
I posted what Hatch said earlier in the thread. Hatch didn’t say Kavanaugh told him he wasn’t at that party.
I've seen the video.  It's online here  Here's a transcript:

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, (R), UTAH: I talked to him on the phone today. 

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What did he say to you? 

HATCH: Well, he didn't do that, and he wasn't at the party. So, you know, clearly, somebody's mixed up. 

RAJU: He said he wasn't at the party that she's referring to? 

HATCH: Yes. Yes. 

RAJU: And how long did you talk to him for? 

HATCH: Oh, 10 minutes or so. 

 
I posted what Hatch said earlier in the thread. Hatch didn’t say Kavanaugh told him he wasn’t at that party.
I've seen the video.  It's online here  Here's a transcript:

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, (R), UTAH: I talked to him on the phone today. 

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What did he say to you? 

HATCH: Well, he didn't do that, and he wasn't at the party. So, you know, clearly, somebody's mixed up. 

RAJU: He said he wasn't at the party that she's referring to? 

HATCH: Yes. Yes. 

RAJU: And how long did you talk to him for? 

HATCH: Oh, 10 minutes or so. 
Oops @jonessed just ooops

 
The transcript I saw might have been a different interview then.  He said Kavanaugh told him he wasn’t at a party like that.
Maybe.  But he unequivocally stated in no uncertain terms in this interview that Kavanaugh told him he wasn't at the party that she's referring to.  

 
Maybe.  But he unequivocally stated in no uncertain terms in this interview that Kavanaugh told him he wasn't at the party that she's referring to.  
Now you believe Hatch. Your funny.

Kind of like Kathy Griffin likes Sessions, well she thought she did.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top