What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (5 Viewers)

Sand said:
If charges can be found they should be brought.  If a lawyer type should be disbarred.

Not relevant.  Both can be looked into independently.

If we care that harm has been done to Dr. Ford in her sexual assault we should also care about the harm done her today.  To suggest otherwise is pretty darn callous.
Click to expand...
I suggest if she isn’t asking for an investigation into something that may not be illegal at all...why waste resources?

Also to compare the harm in leaking the letter to the harm of sexual assault is utterly ridiculous (and that’s putting it mildly)

 
I think the yearbook stuff is illuminating.  

In his college yearbook, Alito wrote that he was going to become a SCOTUS justice.

In her high school yearbook, Kagan posed in a judge's robe holding a gavel and had a quote from Felix Frankfurter.

RBG's high school yearbook says that she was in the school's honor society, a member of the orchestra and twirlers, treasurer of a group called the Go-Getters, features editor to the school newspaper, and secretary to the English department's chair. 

Souter brought a leather briefcase to high school.

More here: link

 
squistion said:
Tim O'Brien‏Verified account @TimOBrien 2h2 hours ago

Scott Pelley: “If Judge Kavanaugh is shown to have lied to the committee, nomination’s over?”

Jeff Flake: “Oh, yes.”

Chris Coons: “I would think so.”

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1046551018425782272
Click to expand...
Should be a slam dunk then.  He didn’t tell the truth about any question related to his yearbook.  Lie after lie.  

Oh.  Right. Trump is shutting down those witnesses.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand said:
If charges can be found they should be brought.  If a lawyer type should be disbarred.

Not relevant.  Both can be looked into independently.

If we care that harm has been done to Dr. Ford in her sexual assault we should also care about the harm done her today.  To suggest otherwise is pretty darn callous.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the person who sexually assaulted her slimes through, but the people who brought the accusation to light get sanctioned.   

Trump’s America in a nut shell. 

 
Amused to Death said:
I hadn't heard that one.  I've missed several pages here today if it was covered earlier.
Click to expand...
During his testimony he volunteered that he got into Yale with no connections.  It turns out his $60K-per-year boarding school was on Yale’s radar, and his grandfather is a Yale graduate.  

So either he knew he had connections to Yale and lied, or is so wrapped up in privilege he isn’t aware having a grandparent as an alum and going to a pipeline boarding school are connections.  

 
bradyfan said:
I am pretty sure the FBI has been talking to his Yale classmates.
Click to expand...
If that is true he should toast.  I wouldn’t expect those people to remember details about a specific party.  But they will know what Devil’s Triangle, boofing and being an “alumnist” of that woman meant.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bradyfan said:
How do you tell if a guy blacked out vs. fell asleep?
Click to expand...
If you are puking in the back of a car, I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest you might have some memory gaps of the evening.  Or when you admit you need to “piece it back together” and ask friends in an email what happened.  

I mean this guy lied about everything.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bradyfan said:
So you think he either lied about assaulting women or blacked out and forgot he did?
Click to expand...
Yes.  But that’s not why I think he should be pulled.  I do t think there is enough to get him for the assault (which I am very confident he did).

he should be pulled because he lied to the committee on a whole host of topics.  He perjured himself over and over again.  To me, that is disqualifying.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Feinstein hid Ford's allegations for as long as possible.
Click to expand...
Because she was asked for confidentiality about those allegations. And when she finally turned them over to the FBI she wasn't the leaker.

Ryan Grim‏Verified account @ryangrim

Feinstein's staff did not leak the letter to The Intercept
Click to expand...
Ryan Grim‏Verified account @ryangrim

Nor did she or her staff leak the existence of the letter to The Intercept. After our story, she turned it over to the FBI, which placed it in his background file, which meant that it became widely available and soon after it was leaked to CNN
Click to expand...
But I do understand that you dislike her.

edited to add: "her" = Diane Feinstein, not Christine Blasey Ford

 
Last edited by a moderator:
“Dr. Ford’s lawyer [sic] says she has not been contacted by the FBI. Is that because she is not on the White House-approved witness list?” tweeted NBC investigative reporter Ken Dilanian.

Dr. Ford’s lawyer lawyer says she has not been contacted by the FBI. Is that because she is not on the White House-approved witness list?

— Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) September 30, 2018
Click to expand...
There seems to be some confusion about the parameters and scope of the investigation. It was reported that the White House named only four people that could be interviewed for the background check. Neither Kavanaugh nor Dr. Ford were on the list. White House Counsel Don McGahn likely doesn’t want Kavanaugh to be put in a position to lie to the FBI after he’s already been found to have lied to the Senate more than once under oath.
Click to expand...
link

 
Last edited by a moderator:
When even investigations are coverups.

President Trump said on Saturday that the F.B.I. will have “free rein” to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, but the emerging contours of the inquiry showed its limited scope.

Four witnesses will be questioned in coming days about aspects of the assault accusations against Judge Kavanaugh, according to two people familiar with the matter. Left off the list were former classmates who have contradicted Judge Kavanaugh’s congressional testimony about his drinking and partying as a student.

The White House will decide the breadth of the inquiry, though presidential advisers were working in concert with Senate Republicans, said the two people, one a senior administration official, who both spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive investigation.
Click to expand...

 
During Thursday’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh said he told investigators that new accusations of sexual assault were “ridiculous and from ‘The Twilight Zone.'” Well, the daughter of that show’s creator, Rod Serling, has something to say about that.

On Friday morning, writer Anne Serling posted a picture of her father looking over a script for the legendary CBS sci-fi show, and talked about what sort of fate she believed Serling would write for a character like Kavanaugh.

“Because The Twilight Zone has been invoked in the Kavenaugh hearings, I’ll offer this: my father believed in decency, integrity and justice,” she tweeted. “Had he written this, I assure you–there would indeed be a further FBI investigation along with some cosmic justice.”
Click to expand...
link

 
This scenario seemed unthinkable a month ago, but it's now being privately discussed by sources involved in Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation: If Kavanaugh falls after the FBI investigation this week and Democrats flip the Senate in November, will Trump nominate a compromise Supreme Court justice who's acceptable to Senate Democrats?

The answer: No way, according to sources with direct knowledge of the president’s thinking, both inside and outside the White House.

"If Kavanaugh doesn't make it, it all depends on the midterms," said one of those sources.

"If they hold the Senate, OK, regroup, put somebody up next year or maybe end of this year.

"But if he [Kavanaugh] doesn’t make it and the Senate flips, I think it's 4-4 for next two years.

"Politically, I think they would rather keep it 4-4 rather than put somebody acceptable on the court," the source added. "He [Trump] needs to run on polarization and the court in 2020."
Click to expand...
source

 
bradyfan said:
I have no obligation to connect the dots for you.  Do your own dirty work.
Click to expand...
You made an unsubstantiated claim about people being involved in something. With that claim, it would appear that you have more details or know where said details are located. When challenged on said claim and/or details of said claim, you respond with, "I have no obligation to connect the dots for you.  Do your own dirty work." That is the whole essence of making a claim, is that you have the responsibility to back up said claim.

The following is every conversation with a Trump supporter:

Trump Supporter: The dots are connected. They weren't lying.

Person who wants evidence: Could you tell us those dots or help us locate them.

Trump Supporter: I have to go home now.
Click to expand...

 
During an interview on 60 Minutes that is set to air Sunday night, Graham appeared with Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana.

"Could either of you change your mind depending on what the FBI report comes back with?" host John Dickerson wondered.

"Of course," Kennedy replied as Graham stared at him intently.

"Open mind?" Dickerson pressed.

"Of course," Kennedy repeated. "I said going into the hearing, I've talked to Judge Kavanaugh. I called him after this happened, the allegations came out, [and I] said, 'Did you do it?' He was resolute, determined, unequivocal."

Graham suggested that he had set the bar much higher for changing his mind.

"My mind's made up about Brett Kavanaugh and it would take a dynamite accusation," Graham opined. "Because, here's the deal, Dr. Ford, I don't know what happened but I know this, Brett denied it vigorously and everybody she named couldn't verify it, it's 36 years old."

"I don't see anything new changing [my mind]," he concluded.
Click to expand...
source

 
Mario Kart said:
You made an unsubstantiated claim about people being involved in something. With that claim, it would appear that you have more details or know where said details are located. When challenged on said claim and/or details of said claim, you respond with, "I have no obligation to connect the dots for you.  Do your own dirty work." That is the whole essence of making a claim, is that you have the responsibility to back up said claim.
Click to expand...
You’re responding to perhaps the biggest troll in this thread (and given the stiff competition, that’s saying something!) he wants you to argue with him. 

 
timschochet said:
You’re responding to perhaps the biggest troll in this thread (and given the stiff competition, that’s saying something!) he wants you to argue with him. 
Click to expand...
Well, I'm above that as I'm not arguing with him. I'm simply asking for information he seems to have. He is belittling his own intelligence by making #### up and we all see it.

 
Mario Kart said:
He is belittling his own intelligence by making #### up and we all see it.
Click to expand...
His effort to get people to respond to each individual "dot" he posts has gotten obvious. There's another poster on the site, can't remember his name, who did the same with unsourced information that had to be "decoded".

 
The woman who interviewed Dr Ford and has 25 years of experience as a prosecutor specializing in sex crimes put out a 5 page assessment.

WaPo link

For anyone here who is legitimately concerned with the truth and the judicial process you will appreciate what she has to say.

She lays out why she believes any reasonable prosecutor would not proceed based on the evidence before the committee.

If I can find a link that I can cut an paste from I'll insert quotes, otherwise you can click on the link and read the pdfs.

@Otis You should probably read this link as well. Seeing you go from sane human to "I'm moving to Canada because white men are evil rapists" after spending just a few hours in this forum was hilarious, but not healthy for you or your family.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bruce Dickinson said:
During his testimony he volunteered that he got into Yale with no connections.  It turns out his $60K-per-year boarding school was on Yale’s radar, and his grandfather is a Yale graduate.  

So either he knew he had connections to Yale and lied, or is so wrapped up in privilege he isn’t aware having a grandparent as an alum and going to a pipeline boarding school are connections.  
Click to expand...
This is how far you have moved the goal posts.

Sexual assault/gang rape >>>>>>> fart jokes >>>>>>> drinking games >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting upset that the left fabricated gang rape stories and threatened to kill his wife and daughters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his paw paw was a Yale alum.

Do you not see how freaking absurd this is?

 
zoonation said:
If that is true he should toast.  I wouldn’t expect those people to remember details about a specific party.  But they will know what Devil’s Triangle, boofing and being an “alumnist” of that woman meant.   
Click to expand...
:lmao:

Boof 

Devil's Triangle

Again. Stop, look at yourself. This is what you are obsessing over.

Just because you think of butt sex when you hear Boof does not mean that is the final word. When I hear the word Boof I think of this

And Devil's Triangle? Most people are familiar with the term Devils Threesome or Devils Three-way. Devil's Triangle? Nope, go to urban dictionary and you will see that nobody had a clue what Devil's Triangle was until September 2018. Devils Threesome and Devils Three-way on the other hand have a steady search history.

And then ask yourself, why am I looking up sexual slang on urban dictionary? Because I hate Republicans and Trump that much. And then think about that for a minute.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NFL2DF said:
:lmao:

Boof 

Devil's Triangle

Again. Stop, look at yourself. This is what you are obsessing over.

Just because you think of butt sex when you hear Boof does not mean that is the final word. When I hear the word Boof I think of this

And Devil's Triangle? Most people are familiar with the term Devils Threesome or Devils Three-way. Devil's Triangle? Nope, go to urban dictionary and you will see that nobody had a clue what Devil's Triangle was until September 2018. Devils Threesome and Devils Three-way on the other hand have a steady search history.

And then ask yourself, why am I looking up sexual slang on urban dictionary? Because I hate Republicans and Trump that much. And then think about that for a minute.
Click to expand...
Lol.  Willful blindness at its finest right here.  

Your boy is a serial liar.   Just admit you don’t care instead typing out these ridiculous “arguments”.   Good lord.  

 
NFL2DF said:
The woman who interviewed Dr Ford and has 25 years of experience as a prosecutor specializing in sex crimes put out a 5 page assessment.

WaPo link

For anyone here who is legitimately concerned with the truth and the judicial process you will appreciate what she has to say.

She lays out why she believes any reasonable prosecutor would not proceed based on the evidence before the committee.
Click to expand...
:sigh:

As mentioned in this thread over a dozen times, this was not a criminal trial. What a reasonable prosecutor would do in an actual criminal investigation is not particularly relevant for what was essentially a job interview for a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS.

She notes at the link:

A Senate confirmation hearing is not a trial, especially not a prosecution.
Click to expand...
She then goes on to say she works "in the legal world...not the political world" and can only provide her assessment "in that legal context," which means that while her opinion is interesting, it is not relevant to a determination if Kavanaugh has the character and temperament required for a member of SCOTUS.

 
squistion said:
:sigh:

As mentioned in this thread over a dozen times, this was not a criminal trial. What a reasonable prosecutor would do in an actual criminal investigation is not particularly relevant for what was essentially a job interview for a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS.

She notes at the link:

She then goes on to say she works "in the legal world...not the political world" and can only provide her assessment "in that legal context," which means that while her opinion is interesting, it is not relevant to a determination if Kavanaugh has the character and temperament required for a member of SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
Job applications ask if you have ever been convicted or plead guilty, not if you have been acquitted or falsely accused

 
NFL2DF said:
And Devil's Triangle? Most people are familiar with the term Devils Threesome or Devils Three-way. Devil's Triangle? Nope, go to urban dictionary and you will see that nobody had a clue what Devil's Triangle was until September 2018. Devils Threesome and Devils Three-way on the other hand have a steady search history.

And then ask yourself, why am I looking up sexual slang on urban dictionary? Because I hate Republicans and Trump that much. And then think about that for a minute.
Click to expand...
I did and this was at the top of the page:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Devils Triangle

Top definition

Devils Triangle 

A made up game of quarters with three cups arranged in a triangle. The rules are unknown because the inventor of the game, Brett Kavanaugh, could not explain them under oath.

"Hey Renate? Want to play devils triangle with Mark and I?" Brett asked.

 
bradyfan said:
Yeah, I updated the link to the WP one right after you clicked.

I would like to hear a good lawyer’s take on the analysis.  Paging Woz...
Click to expand...
Well, as a fair to middling lawyer, I’ll throw my hat in until he arrives.

I agree that the evidence available to her would not meet the burden of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

I haven’t decided about “preponderance of the evidence” but I think it very well could. Particularly given Judge Kavanaugh’s performance. 

But that is why an investigation and a trial generally involves more than two witnesses as the entire book of evidence on a case.  Once other evidence is considered, no doubt there will be a shift in the burden. 

As it stands, I think someone who will be handed a lifetime appointment for the Supreme Court doesn’t need a conviction or to even lose a civil suit. Just like that guy from America’s Got Talent got arrested for domestic violence, charges were dropped, but he still won’t get to play with Garth Brooks.  I’d say if I can survive summary judgment with an attempted rape case in civil court, it should stop an appointment to the Supreme Court. And I think I’d get to the jury on this one.

 
NFL2DF said:
Just because you think of butt sex when you hear Boof does not mean that is the final word. When I hear the word Boof I think of this
Click to expand...
Oh, me too. Remember that scene where they were locked in the closet together and he literally tore through her clothes during a makeout session while she screamed at him to stop?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
11K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
2K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top