Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Flash1 said:

I believe he is being accused of trying to take her bra off right? Is that felony rape?

He is being accused of locking her in a room, pushing her down, turning up the music ti drown the sound, putting his hand over her mouth and yes, then trying to remove her swimsuit.

**Her swimsuit which was on under her other clothes.** eta

Edited by dutch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:
25 minutes ago, Doug B said:

Don't care about that -- talking about one case here, not the entire body of sexual assault cases in the U.S. I don't like the idea that a tenuous (by age) accusation has practically as much force as a conviction by jury.

So what's your suggestion? Legalize rape? Death penalty to accusers?  Chicks learn when to keep their traps shut?

I meant "by age" to mean "by the number of years gone by since the event" not Ford's and Kavanaugh's physical ages.

But no, not at all. Even if she had to do it the way Andrea Constant did it with Bill Cosby ... years after the event but within the statute of limitations, she should very definitely be encouraged to pursue charges. If the statute of limitations has run out, there's not much left to do but speak publicly and see where the public falls on the matter.

I'm fine with Ford making the accusation. I'm not fine with many of the reactions to that accusation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Doug B said:

To me, that's weaselly from a common-sense standpoint (though I know such arguments come up frequently in politics and law). "Isn't it possible you did it?" is way too far from "I can prove you did it!" for me

I know it's not a court of law ... but I don't think Kavanaugh should have to prove he wasn't there, or prove that it was impossible for him to have done it. Full stop.

I don't really care about that e-mail you linked, and I believe that linking it to the early-80s accusation is disingenuous. I understand the tack, but cannot be convinced by it. I believe all humans are at least a little dishonest, and thus don't take the hush-hush tone of Kavanaugh's 2001 e-mail to buddies and extrapolate it to other events in his life. YMMV, but I can't go there.

And, believe it or don't, I'd feel the same if it were Merrick Garland being accused the same way.

You seem to be arguing about what is or is not sufficient to assume Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault.  That's not the crux of my argument here.

If he had remained silent or given a less certain initial response then I would agree with you. I don't think he should have to prove he wasn't there or that it was impossible for him to have done it in order to be confirmed (I think he should be disqualified for other reasons but that's irrelevant to this discussion). 

But that's not what he did.  He said he is 100% certain it didn't happen.  By doing so he empowered attacks on his accuser.  So if we come out of the hearing with him having admitted it's at least possible that he did it, that also means he is unquestionably guilty of lying to the American public about the facts surrounding the allegation and then standing by as people said and did terrible things to and about his accuser.  THAT is disqualifying.

As for the email and whatnot- I wasn't trying to make the case against him regarding the assault, I was just proving examples of how he might be forced by questioning to admit he's less than 100% certain of what happened, which as I said would also mean he lied in 2018 (not as a 17 year old) and then sat back and watched a woman get attacked based on his lie.

Edited by TobiasFunke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Also Ford hasn’t agreed to this. So who knows what’s going to happen? 

Quote

Ford's attorney Debra Katz told "CBS This Morning" Monday that Ford is "willing to do whatever is necessary" to make sure the committee has the "full story."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Flash1 said:

Is this the reason you believe he's lying?

 

I believe in motives. And logic. What is her reason to lie? So that she can face scumbags who will accuse her of lying and/or being slutty?  Not saying it's not a possibility, but in most of these cases (O'Reilly, Cosby, Franken, Louie CK, etc) they turn out to be true. After a denial in the beginning.   I'm glad there's a hearing. We'll know more shortly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

So they didn't contact her, set a hearing for the first day of classes at her university, and only informed her by email.  And now "well, we haven't heard back from her in a few hours, so who knows?"

That's Grassley for you.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rude classless thugs said:

All 10 Senate Judiciary Democrats are asking FBI director Chris Wray and W.H. counsel Don McGahn to reopen Brett Kavanaugh's background investigation.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1042103525264764928

McGahn:

"Hey, remember when you decided to inform me I was leaving by Twitter?  Guess what I just asked the DOJ to do?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Taken willingly, however.  

Indeed. In that instance it was a synonym for  "fascinated" or "interested in".  Sadly in our area of the country, and with primarily harness stock though some bridle, we did not have chaps.  I got a few inquiries about chaps.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mene said:

With HellToupee's show this morning, and your performance this afternoon, I find myself more frustrated than ever that people like you have the representatives you want running this county, a country I am guiding a now young adult daughter into.  You disgust me.  I know you don't care how I feel, why should you, I'm just some random guy on the internet, but I feel compelled to say it anyways.  

I truly hope we have better days ahead, because I have never been more disappointed in this country.  The fact that voices like yours have found a place of prominence in our society, through our elected leadership, absolutely frightens me.  

Amen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Flash1 said:

Well this is very different from what I read.

 

Please share.

https://apnews.com/e2c35c0fb46f4464bcda77441caf1f7b

Quote

 

Ford told the Post that Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” she says — corralled her into a bedroom during a house party in Maryland in the early 1980s when she was around 15 and Kavanaugh was around 17. She says Kavanaugh groped her over her clothes, grinded his body against hers and tried to take off her one-piece swimsuit and the outfit she wore over it.

Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand when she tried to scream, she says, and escaped when Judge jumped on them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Flash1 said:
19 minutes ago, dutch said:

He is being accused of locking her in a room, pushing her down, turning up the music ti drown the sound, putting his hand over her mouth and yes, then trying to remove her swimsuit.

**Her swimsuit which was on under her other clothes.** eta

Well this is very different from what I read.

 

 

Where did you read your account?

 

Quote

 

July 30 2018

CONFIDENTIAL

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Dear Senator Feinstein;

I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.

As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.

Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's. He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.

Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.

The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.

Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.

Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.

From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from "go for it" to "stop."

At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.

I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.

I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information . It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.

I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.

In confidence, REDACTED.

 

 

Edited by toshiba
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will come down to if you believe him or her.

He has many witnesses from his high school days on up through his Bush days, through his days as a judges. Plus 6 FBI  investigations and a 3 days round of his judiciary hearings where the Democrats have already tried to discredit him. 

He can call dozens of women that have know him in high school, college, worked with him in the Bush Administration, he has mentored as a judge. He could call literally hundreds of witnesses regarding the kind of person he is, and always has been.

She has nothing but a 35 year old story that she does not recall correctly where it happened, when it happened and did not file a police report.

The Democrats, left, resist, Never-Trumpers etc will believe her regardless of the overwhelming support and number's of witnesses he has and her having nothing. Even the therapists report said 4 attackers. They will all vote against him, no matter what.

The Republicans will let her have her say and will vote him in. He has everything on his side. She has nothing.

He will sit on the Supreme Court and can only maybe be delayed but not stopped.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, rude classless thugs said:

The Kavanaugh supporters can't seem to explain this. Why, indeed would she claim his drinking buddy was not only at the party but a witness to what happened. If she was making this up out of whole cloth there would be no reason to include Judge in the narrative.

exactly.  this is the biggest reason why I believe her.  Well, that and this guy just so happens to be a borderline sociopath which, based on his writings, is easily someone who I could see participating in the exact type of situation he is being accused of.

Could it be made up?  Sure.  I'd say about a 10% chance.

But, as Tim and Tobias have so eloquently articulated, it is either made up or happened (to whatever degree).  Kavanaugh has neutered his own ability to argue that it was a misunderstanding or the nature of the encounter is being wrongly described.  He is all in on fabrication.  To the point where he says he didn;t even go to parties "like that".  Like what?  where people are drinking to excess?  Yeah, bull####.  And, if he is lying about that, which he almost certainly is, then he is not qualified to sit on the highest court.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I only saw a couple of reported thread reports for this. There should have been 20. Please report when you see things going wrong like this. It's sometimes the only way it will be seen. 

He's gone for the year and then mods will look at it then.

For the record, first time a date says "No", that's the end of it. Full stop. 

Good effort...but its not as if he isn't already back Joe.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

But that's not what he did.  He said he is 100% certain it didn't happen.  By doing so he empowered attacks on his accuser.  So if we come out of the hearing with him having admitted it's at least possible that he did it, that also means he is unquestionably guilty of lying to the American public about the facts surrounding the allegation and then standing by as people said and did terrible things to and about his accuser.  THAT is disqualifying.

He never has to admit this. Even with the 2001 e-mail argument you linked, and the Orrin Hatch statement ... all Kavanaugh has to state is something along the lines of "Nevertheless, I did not do it."

Q: Given [previous testimony X], is it possible you did it?
A: No, it is not.

Even if they establish that he got blackout drunk with some frequency, he could conceivably still say "Nevertheless, it is not possible that I did it." :shrug: Vote then falls generally along party lines, minus one or both of Collins or Flake.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the Republicans (with no Democratic input and without a committment from the letter-writer) have scheduled this hearing for Monday.

Quote

senators said the woman who has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were in high school had not yet agreed to appear.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/feinstein-says-republicans-making-same-mistakes-anita-hill-n910546

The sensible way to do it would have been to find out when she can appear, see if that date (or dates) work for Kavanaugh, and then schedule the hearing. But this is Grassley's #### show, and he's going to have the hearing with or without her I guess.

Quote

"We have reached out to her in the last 36 hours, three or four times by email and we’ve not heard from them, so it kind of raises the question, do they want to come to the public hearing or not?" Grassley said on The Hugh Hewitt Show radio show.

Grassley also said that there will be only 2 witnesses --- the one they carefully coach, and the one they're daring to appear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fatness said:

By the way, the Republicans (with no Democratic input and without a committment from the letter-writer) have scheduled this hearing for Monday.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/feinstein-says-republicans-making-same-mistakes-anita-hill-n910546

The sensible way to do it would have been to find out when she can appear, see if that date (or dates) work for Kavanaugh, and then schedule the hearing. But this is Grassley's #### show, and he's going to have the hearing with or without her I guess.

Grassley also said that there will be only 2 witnesses --- the one they carefully coach, and the one they're daring to appear.

Monday, September 24.

https://www.paloaltou.edu/sites/default/files/2018-19 Undergraduate Calendar.pdf

09/24/2018 Fall 2018 Term Start

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sand said:

IMO Ford, if she chooses to speak, will be treated with kid gloves.  

Somewhat, they will delve into her past including her high school days. Her story will not be assailed but they will check everything in her past. Such as high school, social media, friends, political donations etc.  She will not come out of this in a good light. 

So yeah "kid gloves" as far as her story, but they are already looking into everything in her past. 

Even Kavanaugh's high school age friends have nothing good to say about her. They hardly remember her actually.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Qanon said:

Somewhat, they will delve into her past including her high school days. Her story will not be assailed but they will check everything in her past. Such as high school, social media, friends, political donations etc.  She will not come out of this in a good light. 

So yeah "kid gloves" as far as her story, but they are already looking into everything in her past. 

Even Kavanaugh's high school age friends have nothing good to say about her. They hardly remember her actually.

 

 

Why would Kavanaugh's high school friends remember her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Qanon said:

Somewhat, they will delve into her past including her high school days. Her story will not be assailed but they will check everything in her past. Such as high school, social media, friends, political donations etc.  She will not come out of this in a good light. 

So yeah "kid gloves" as far as her story, but they are already looking into everything in her past. 

Even Kavanaugh's high school age friends have nothing good to say about her. They hardly remember her actually.

 

 

Will they lie about her as you have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doug B said:

He never has to admit this. Even with the 2001 e-mail argument you linked, and the Orrin Hatch statement ... all Kavanaugh has to state is something along the lines of "Nevertheless, I did not do it."

Q: Given [previous testimony X], is it possible you did it?
A: No, it is not.

Even if they establish that he got blackout drunk with some frequency, he could conceivably still say "Nevertheless, it is not possible that I did it." :shrug: Vote then falls generally along party lines, minus one or both of Collins or Flake.

He may not have to literally recant his previous 100% certainty that it didn't happen. But if it goes down like that- where he can't explain his previous certainty in the face of reasonable questions about it- he loses credibility, and I doubt the vote goes along party lines in that case.  From a political standpoint the GOP is probably better off without him if he comes out of the hearings anything less than totally vindicated. Trump is in office for at least two more years so it's not like a Justice Breyer type is gonna get the seat, and the party is already losing suburban female voters at an alarming rate. Plus as I mentioned before an open supreme court seat might motivate their otherwise lethargic base to turn out in November.

I'm not alone in thinking this, either.  Check out the pricing on a Kavanaugh confirmation at predictit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Monday, September 24.

https://www.paloaltou.edu/sites/default/files/2018-19 Undergraduate Calendar.pdf

09/24/2018 Fall 2018 Term Start

 

if this is important as she says it is, she will be there. I don't think she will be because she will not be able to stand up to questioning. I hope she appears and tell her "story".

Her schedule should be of little regard in comparison to sexual assault allegations. 

Absolutely no reason to drag this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Sand said:

IMO Ford, if she chooses to speak, will be treated with kid gloves.  

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao: 

They set the date for the hearing without input from her or her representatives.  

They withheld far more documents the candidate produced than they revealed, and a non-trivial amount of those released were done so hours before the hearings started.  

They sent to Majority Leader to the floor yesterday to criticize her, the letter, the timing of it all, and how unfair all this is to the candidate.

They’ve been rushing to get this done and get Kavanaugh in his new robe by the first Monday in October.

But now... now... they’re going to play nice.  

Edited by Bruce Dickinson
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Qanon said:

if this is important as she says it is, she will be there. I don't think she will be because she will not be able to stand up to questioning. I hope she appears and tell her "story".

Her schedule should be of little regard in comparison to sexual assault allegations. 

Absolutely no reason to drag this out.

Absolutely no reason to rush it, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Clayton Gray changed the title to ***Official Supreme Court nomination thread: Welcome New Justice

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...