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 (3 Viewers)

TobiasFunke said:
Apologies if I misconstrued, but this certainly doesn't sound like someone interested in a civil conversation. That struck me as someone trying to be inflammatory by asserting opinion as fact and dismissing legitimate concern for Kavanaugh's fitness and the message it sends if he is confirmed.

Anyway, you said Ford "admitted under oath that Feinstein told her she’d keep the letter confidential until right before the vote." I didn't hear "right before the vote" anywhere in the discussion you highlighted.

In fact, she was directly asked what you seem to be alleging immediately after the conversation you cite, and she flatly denied it:
 
Click to expand...
Directly before this she says it was going to be kept confidential until right before the hearing.

 
bleachercreacher said:
toshiba said:
Starting at 2:40

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/27/ford_feinstein_gave_me_advice_on_attorneys.html

Miller: Was it your understanding that it was going to be kept confidential up until the hearing.

Ford: It was my understanding that it was going to be kept confidential, period!

Miller: Period?  Ok.
Click to expand...
Which is completely contradictory to what she said directly before her attorney interrupted.  
Click to expand...
No it's not and you're mis-characterizing it and at this point I am assuming intentionally.

I apologize @TobiasFunke, it looks like you were right about him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bleachercreacher said:
The last part of this quote from the video though.  She clearly says “until right before the hearing”.  
Click to expand...
Here's what I assume you're referring to:

FORD: I sent her a letter on July 30th. And I don’t have the date. I’d have to pull up my e-mail to find out the date of her e-mail to me saying that — it was right before the hearings that she was going to maintain the confidentiality of the — of the letter.
Click to expand...
That's a jumbled mess of words, but I think it's a huge stretch to think she's saying that Feinstein planned to end confidentiality right before the hearings. Most likely she's referring to the date of the email from Feinstein being relatively recent.

Thankfully we don't have to wonder, because she was asked to clarify immediately after and did so and she meant nothing like what you are saying.

 
TobiasFunke said:
bleachercreacher said:
The last part of this quote from the video though.  She clearly says “until right before the hearing”.  
Click to expand...
Here's what I assume you're referring to:

FORD: I sent her a letter on July 30th. And I don’t have the date. I’d have to pull up my e-mail to find out the date of her e-mail to me saying that — it was right before the hearings that she was going to maintain the confidentiality of the — of the letter.
Click to expand...
That's a jumbled mess of words, but I think it's a huge stretch to think she's saying that Feinstein planned to end confidentiality right before the hearings. Most likely she's referring to the date of the email from Feinstein being relatively recent.

Thankfully we don't have to wonder, because she was asked to clarify immediately after and did so and she meant nothing like what you are saying.
Click to expand...
Yeah at this point I think bleacher is being intentionally misleading and no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
toshiba said:
No it's not and you're mis-characterizing it and at this point I am assuming intentionally.

I apologize @TobiasFunke, it looks like you were right about him.
Click to expand...
It’s not intentional, I promise.  She contradicted herself like 30 seconds apart.  She clearly says that it was to remain confidential until right before the hearing, her attorney interrupts, and then her story changed, which is exactly what I remembered all along.  

 
bleachercreacher said:
Directly before this she says it was going to be kept confidential until right before the hearing.
Click to expand...
No she doesn't, and your continued insistence that this sentiment was conveyed when it was directly contradicted immediately afterwards on direct questioning seems like more bad faith/trolling on your part. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly now.

 
Weebs210 said:
Well it was a good attempt guys. Enjoy your new member of the SC.
Click to expand...
Obstruction by any means necessary should not be rewarded, this moving forward is the right thing to happen. Can't reward out of control behavior and giving the extra week was a nice bipartisan gesture that I see the excuses are already pouring out to discredit. Typical. 

 
Bronco Billy said:
Can we put Feinstein and Schumer through 7 separate FBI investigations to determine if they are fit to vote for a SCOTUS candidate?
Click to expand...
Yes Feinstein is currently being investigated by the voters and we will know in November.  Schumer will be investigated by the voters in 2022.

 
Weebs210 said:
Well it was a good attempt guys. Enjoy your new member of the SC.
Click to expand...
It will be really interesting to see how he rules for the balance of his career.  Does he maintain what appears to be his judicial philosophy to date, or does he shift leftward as have many Republican-nominated Justices before him?  Does his confirmation process create a resolve (or a bias, depending on your perspective) to rule against the liberal wing of the Court at every opportunity, or will he be inclined to side with them on occasion in an attempt to repair his image as overly political?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bleachercreacher said:
toshiba said:
No it's not and you're mis-characterizing it and at this point I am assuming intentionally.

I apologize @TobiasFunke, it looks like you were right about him.
Click to expand...
It’s not intentional, I promise.  She contradicted herself like 30 seconds apart.  She clearly says that it was to remain confidential until right before the hearing, her attorney interrupts, and then her story changed, which is exactly what I remembered all along.  
Click to expand...
She does say those words.  It reminds me of my Uncle Jack and his horse.  You are being intentional at this point if you can't see what is being said.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bleachercreacher said:
It’s not intentional, I promise.  She contradicted herself like 30 seconds apart.  She clearly says that it was to remain confidential until right before the hearing, her attorney interrupts, and then her story changed, which is exactly what I remembered all along.  
Click to expand...
There is nothing whatsoever about the response you're citing that could be described as "clear." I already gave you a more plausible explanation for what she was saying, one that doesn't conflict with her subsequent testimony. Furthermore, Mitchell obviously also thought it wasn't clear, since she asked several follow-up questions trying to get clarity.

You're just being deliberately obtuse now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JuniorNB said:
Winning the midterms neuters Trump a great deal. Nothing is more important for our country than that. 
Click to expand...
Best thing for our country is to stay on course with the economy booming and unemployment at all time lows.  Why would anyone want to vote in Democrats who have said they want to raise taxes, reinstate economy-hurting regulations, and increase national security threats with open border policy?

Americans are very stupid if Democrats are voted in this November.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
bleachercreacher said:
It’s not intentional, I promise.  She contradicted herself like 30 seconds apart.  She clearly says that it was to remain confidential until right before the hearing, her attorney interrupts, and then her story changed, which is exactly what I remembered all along.  
Click to expand...
There is nothing whatsoever about the response you're citing that could be described as "clear." I already gave you a more plausible explanation for what she was saying, one that doesn't conflict with her subsequent testimony. Furthermore, Mitchell clearly also agreed it wasn't clear, since she asked several follow-up questions trying to get clarity.

You're just being deliberately obtuse now.
Click to expand...
Agreed

 
bigbottom said:
It will be really interesting to see who he rules for the balance of his career.  Does he maintain what appears to be his judicial philosophy to date, or does he shift leftward as have many Republican-nominated Justices before him?  Does his confirmation process create a resolve (or a bias, depending on your perspective) to rule against the liberal wing of the Court at every opportunity, or will he be inclined to side with them on occasion in an attempt to repair his image as overly political?
Click to expand...
He's in that seat for one purpose only. Because he believes that the President can pardon himself.  Conservative judges who believe in taking away women's right to choose are a dime a dozen.  They fought tooth and nail for this guy to protect their criminal of a leader.

 
bleachercreacher said:
Directly before this she says it was going to be kept confidential until right before the hearing.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to this quote?:

FORD: I sent her a letter on July 30th. And I don’t have the date. I’d have to pull up my e-mail to find out the date of her e-mail to me saying that — it was right before the hearings that she was going to maintain the confidentiality of the — of the letter.

Even if you assume that she wasn't referring to when she received the email when she said "it was right before the hearings", it actually says the opposite of what you are suggesting.  "It was right before the hearings that she was going to maintain the confidentiality of the letter" is the precise opposite of "It was right before the hearings that she was going to stop maintaining the confidentiality of the letter."

 
JuniorNB said:
bigbottom said:
It will be really interesting to see who he rules for the balance of his career.  Does he maintain what appears to be his judicial philosophy to date, or does he shift leftward as have many Republican-nominated Justices before him?  Does his confirmation process create a resolve (or a bias, depending on your perspective) to rule against the liberal wing of the Court at every opportunity, or will he be inclined to side with them on occasion in an attempt to repair his image as overly political?
Click to expand...
He's in that seat for one purpose only. Because he believes that the President can pardon himself.  Conservative judges who believe in taking away women's right to choose are a dime a dozen.  They fought tooth and nail for this guy to protect their criminal of a leader.
Click to expand...
But that doesn't mean that is how he will rule.  Once he is on, he is beholden to no one. 

What are you're thoughts @noone or is it @No One ? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
proninja said:
Yeah, why would we care what people who teach law or the American Bar Association thinks when we could listen to Jed from Ankeny who likes trucks and corn.
Click to expand...
My 1L legal writing prof signed on. There are some heavy hitters on the list, but there's some chaff as well.

 
bleachercreacher said:
I’m done.  It’s not intentional, she states it clear as day in the video.  It’s funny that we can question what Kavanaugh says in a high school yearbook (rightfully so), but we can’t question what Dr. Ford says in her testimony.
Click to expand...
No she doesn't. The ways it was unclear have been explained to you repeatedly. You've addressed none of those explanations. You should think about taking your own advice to me in this post, it was good advice.

 
Some thoughts:

  1. Stop trolling.
  2. If you've spent many posts arguing something and the other person(s) don't get it, they probably never will.
  3. Name-calling isn't the answer.
Thanks!

 
jerry jones said:
Not studying no, the only experience I have is myself and my wife’s.  I’ll tell you right now, that each of us can recall 90% or more of what happened on those days.

my wife when she was 12, and myself when 15, so yeah I don’t believe 
Click to expand...
I could see how that would affect your perspective. I've never been sexually assaulted but have had physical stuff at the hands of my mother. I remember parts of it vividly but couldn't tell you years or days of the weeks or anything like that. I probably wouldn't be a good witness but I do know what happened.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
It will be really interesting to see how he rules for the balance of his career.  Does he maintain what appears to be his judicial philosophy to date, or does he shift leftward as have many Republican-nominated Justices before him?  Does his confirmation process create a resolve (or a bias, depending on your perspective) to rule against the liberal wing of the Court at every opportunity, or will he be inclined to side with them on occasion in an attempt to repair his image as overly political?
Click to expand...
I think the answer to this is well understood by certain of his supporters and is the defining reason for his unusual support in a group of qualified conservative candidates.  

 
Ignoramus said:
I could see how that would skew your perspective. I've never been sexually assaulted but have had physical stuff at the hands of my mother. I remember parts of it vividly but couldn't tell you years or days of the weeks or anything like that. I probably wouldn't be a good witness but I do know what happened.
Click to expand...
 I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but my memory on events 30 years ago are hazy.  I'm thinking of a party I went to.  I couldn't tell you the year, have no clue how I got there, who I rode with...those kind of things just don't stay with me.  Perhaps a huge event like a sexual assault would heighten my remembrance of a particular party, or perhaps I'd block even more out...I don't think there's any way to know for sure.

 
Seriously, though - as sad as it is - there will be a winning side and losing side here. We don't need posts from bad winners, and we don't need posts from sore losers.

 
Marmalade said:
I will give it to the RNC and Trump they are the master of trolling and getting stuff completed.   I don't agree with their policies but they get it done one way or the other.  

Sure it was a half-### attempt at an FBI investigation, but the RNC and Trump spin it as, "See DNC/LIBS we gave you what you wanted an FBI investigation and they found nothing!" 
Click to expand...
That is on the FBI. They were asked to interview people and they did. The fact that they did not like the outcome is irrelevant. One side was going to be pissed off at the results no matter how it went.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Da Guru said:
Marmalade said:
I will give it to the RNC and Trump they are the master of trolling and getting stuff completed.   I don't agree with their policies but they get it done one way or the other.  

Sure it was a half-### attempt at an FBI investigation, but the RNC and Trump spin it as, "See DNC/LIBS we gave you what you wanted an FBI investigation and they found nothing!" 
Click to expand...
That is on the FBI. They were asked to interview people and they did. The fact that they did not like the outcome is irrelevant. One side was going to be pissed off at the results.
Click to expand...
Do we know what the official directive from the White House was?  Or, in your eyes, doesn't that matter and the FBI should have done whatever they wanted?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
toshiba said:
Do we know what the official directive from the White House was?  Or, in your eyes, doesn't that matter and the FBI should have done whatever they wanted?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what directive from anyone was. All I know is the same thing everybody does that the FBI will conduct their own interviews.

I understand there is only one outcome you would have been happy with but we have no say.

 
Da Guru said:
That is on the FBI. They were asked to interview people and they did. The fact that they did not like the outcome is irrelevant. One side was going to be pissed off at the results no matter how it went.
Click to expand...
How do you know that? We don't know who they interviewed, what those people said, who they were told they could interview, etc.

 
Da Guru said:
toshiba said:
Do we know what the official directive from the White House was?  Or, in your eyes, doesn't that matter and the FBI should have done whatever they wanted?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what directive from anyone was. All I know is the same thing everybody does that the FBI will conduct their own interviews.

I understand there is only one outcome you would have been happy with but we have no say.
Click to expand...
No, you don't know anything about what I would be happy with in the FBI investigation.  Maybe you should try to stick to the thing you know and if you wonder about my views ask me, I will be happy to answer.  I gave you the opportunity to answer a question of what you believe instead of just assuming, maybe you can try and give me the same courtesy.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Of course, but he seemed desperate to make a winning point to buttress his beliefs, against any real rationality, so I just ceded the inapt point as his mind can only process information consistent with his view.  why I got involved in the first place I will never know.  The outcome was inevitable, which is ironic coming from someone like me who would state that I do not believe in predetermination.  (Just another in my many hypocrisies).  
Click to expand...
I asked for examples of 35 year old cases that have been solved without DNA, recordings, or info from an original criminal complaint(which I already acknowledged I could have worded better but given the context of the discussion it is pretty obvious what I meant).

You replied to my question saying a google search of cold cases solved yields results which contradicts what I was saying. I don't find your answer convincing since the reason I put in the 3 caveats I did were because I had already done google searches and I found that the vast majority of old cases solved were with DNA. I also saw some old cases solved from recordings that were discovered or cross referenced. I also saw where they found eyewitnesses previously not identified that provided information that in coordination with eyewitness and forensic data from the original investigation led to a conviction. 

I didnt see any that were solved without that. Which is why I asked for examples since I couldnt find any. 

I gave you a polite reply pointing out I had not changed the parameters as you accused me of before, and now you come back with this. I find that odd especially considering you were the one that brought up the term cold case, not me.  

 
whoknew said:
How do you know that? We don't know who they interviewed, what those people said, who they were told they could interview, etc.
Click to expand...
Republicans will claim they were able to interview who they wanted, Democrats will claim it was a sham investigation, and no one will listen to the other side. Same as always.

 
Da Guru said:
whoknew said:
How do you know that? We don't know who they interviewed, what those people said, who they were told they could interview, etc.
Click to expand...
How do I know? The report is completed and been turned in already.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the report to know who was interviewed? Do you know who the FBI was asked to interview?  If you have this information it would be great to know, because I am unable to find it online.

 
GoBirds said:
Obstruction by any means necessary should not be rewarded, this moving forward is the right thing to happen. Can't reward out of control behavior and giving the extra week was a nice bipartisan gesture that I see the excuses are already pouring out to discredit. Typical. 
Click to expand...
With a little over two years left in Trump's presidency it's a little too close to the next presidential election, so perhaps the next President should get to pick.

 
bleachercreacher said:
I’m done.  It’s not intentional, she states it clear as day in the video.  It’s funny that we can question what Kavanaugh says in a high school yearbook (rightfully so), but we can’t question what Dr. Ford says in her testimony.
Click to expand...
The only person who says the word "until" is Mitchell.

 
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: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top