Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

FBI being asked to circle back on Brett Kavanaugh by Senator Whitehouse


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, jm192 said:

I'm certain this is about justice for the accused and not even a little bit political in nature.

 

This is like the Seinfeld episode where George does everything opposite.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is a naked political grab for his seat, nothing more than that.

If there are criminal charges he should face, investigate away. However, I doubt that is the case. I suspect we are past the statute of limitations.   While I agree a full investigation shou

You have a significant interpretation problem....almost as if it's preconceived.  Assuming "everything" above is supposed to be "everyone"               

20 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I seriously was going to post this article showing how stupid and spiteful the Democrats are.  But here it was already posted and everything thinking how great it is.  :lol:

You have a significant interpretation problem....almost as if it's preconceived.  Assuming "everything" above is supposed to be "everyone"  :shrug: 

7 hours ago, rockaction said:

This is a naked political grab for his seat, nothing more than that.

 

6 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

That article is...uh....interesting.

"Harrowing testimony" 

That's an interesting way to describe a tara reade style narrative. 

 

5 hours ago, The Commish said:

This is dumb.....he has the temperment of a high school kid.  That's clear to everyone, but he has his appointment...time to move on.  

 

5 hours ago, Drunken Cowboy said:

If there are criminal charges he should face, investigate away. However, I doubt that is the case. I suspect we are past the statute of limitations.

 

While I agree a full investigation should have been conducted before he was confirmed, the only point if it now would be to make political hay with it. I am 100% against FBI politization like this.

 

4 hours ago, Godsbrother said:

Agreed.  If there is something new that has come to light go ahead and look into it but the time for a full blown investigation has come and gone.

 

3 hours ago, jm192 said:

I'm certain this is about justice for the accused and not even a little bit political in nature.

 

 

1 hour ago, moleculo said:

yet that was known at the time and he was confirmed regardless.  

There are no do-overs for a for-life appointment.

Kavanaugh has his seat.  isn't nothing gonna get him out, barring impeachment, which would only be subject to anything he has done since the confirmation.

 

53 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

These never ending investigations in Washington are exhausting.  How about we get the damn potholes fixed on I91?

 

53 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Right.....time to move on despite the problem

 

15 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

This is like the Seinfeld episode where George does everything opposite.  

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

I think it is, but lets say you disagree and are in the camp of we don't know for sure.

It doesnt even matter. If you are going to make a judgment about his temperament you are hinging it on whether or not he is guilty of what he was accused of. If he is not guilty, which obviously somebody that is arguing we don't know for sure, has to acknowledge is a possibility, then how can we judge his behavior? 

If you think it is known for sure that he did what he was accused of, then what is the point of the temperament conversation? "I mean yeah, he sexually assaulted me, but sure was real polite"

The temperament comments are just a BS way of trying to make it seem like you are making a non partisan evaluation of him or that you think that even if falsely accused he should just sit there and take it, which to me is more absurd than believing Swetnick.  

It simply isn't a valid talking point without other examples of it, which as Sand pointed out sure seems to be lacking.

 

 

Yes...throwing a temper tantrum like he did lashing out at all the individuals in the Senate is the ONLY way to respond to allegations of sexual assault against you!!!!!  Get the #### out of here with that bull####  :lmao: 

A good many of us had no real beef with him until that incident whether you want to believe that or not.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, moleculo said:

yet that was known at the time and he was confirmed regardless.  

There are no do-overs for a for-life appointment.

Kavanaugh has his seat.  isn't nothing gonna get him out, barring impeachment, which would only be subject to anything he has done since the confirmation.

There will be no more impeachments of any kind unless the process is changed. Like a secret ballot. Senators aren't there to do the right thing, only to please their voters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lazyike said:

There will be no more impeachments of any kind unless the process is changed. Like a secret ballot. Senators aren't there to do the right thing, only to please their voters.

well, there hasn't been a SC justice impeached since 1805 when the independence of the court was still in question.  This isn't something that happens often and it ain't gonna happen here.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rockaction said:

This is a naked political grab for his seat, nothing more than that.

I agree with you @rockaction
 

Here’s what I wrote at the time: the woman was very believable to me, and therefore I was opposed to making Kavanaugh a Supreme Court Justice. But I also wrote that her word alone was not enough to start a criminal proceeding: for that you would need at least some more evidence, of which there wasn’t any. Therefore, while I was not in favor of promoting Kavanaugh, I was not in favor of demoting him. 
 

The US Senate disagreed with me and voted to promote Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. So be it. Now that it was done, I still see no new evidence that would cause him to be demoted. Now that he’s there he should stay there unless new evidence emerges, which is very unlikely at this point. Therefore I must agree that this is a political move, and an awful one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I agree with you @rockaction
 

Here’s what I wrote at the time: the woman was very believable to me, and therefore I was opposed to making Kavanaugh a Supreme Court Justice. But I also wrote that her word alone was not enough to start a criminal proceeding: for that you would need at least some more evidence, of which there wasn’t any. Therefore, while I was not in favor of promoting Kavanaugh, I was not in favor of demoting him. 
 

The US Senate disagreed with me and voted to promote Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. So be it. Now that it was done, I still see no new evidence that would cause him to be demoted. Now that he’s there he should stay there unless new evidence emerges, which is very unlikely at this point. Therefore I must agree that this is a political move, and an awful one. 

He isn’t being investigated. This is a Durham style “investigating the investigators” deal. If doubt his seat would be in jeopardy even if they concluded the fbi didn’t properly investigate the issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sabertooth said:

I'm glad they are circling back on Kavanaugh. 

 

I'm actually OK with this given specific conditions.

There has to be both a Constitutional and a logistical pathway for this to actually work.

1) It's a fair argument that there should be another alternative besides impeachment to remove a sitting SCOTUS Justice. Much of this rides on the issue of lifetime appointment. Also this is the one area of government where an absolutely zero tolerance/draconian level of scrutiny is required at all times.

2) It's also a fair argument that what constitutes "good behavior" and thus implied "misbehavior", as per the Founders intent via Article II when drafting the Constitution, is too unwieldy to unpack fairly without partisan angling. Hence, you need new law via a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck trying to pass that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

3) It's simply not viable to have a situation where the judicial system in place can remove a SCOTUS Justice directly. (i.e. Roy Moore) This violates basic checks and balances. Which leaves popular vote as one of the last alternatives, which truly shifts away from the Founders intent.

4) The ripple effect needs to be considered. If you remove a Justice for cause ( i.e. criminality/conviction/scandal) then what about their rulings while on SCOTUS? Those are all now tainted. The only option is to vacate all rulings while they were a sitting Justice. People need to ask if that's desirable and practical.

5) If you decide to run one Justice through a purity test, you need to do all of them. Every last one. Including those who are retired and dead. And retroactively vacate all  rulings for anyone who gets turfed.

6) If you remove a Justice for criminality, you'll have to turf them from US soil period. That means stripping them of citizenship and all property and deporting them. You must create a deterrence besides losing their bench. Does anyone want to see a former disgraced SCOTUS Justice spilling every last secret in the press and turning into celebrity self parody to shame the entire legal/judicial system in place?

Purity tests are usually toxic. However like any other tool, usually there is a specific role where they can be useful. However they are only useful if everyone is baptized by fire. Everyone.

You want Kavanaugh? Fine. If he committed a crime and it can be proven, he should pay. Not just his seat on the bench. He should lose his citizenship, all his money, all his rights and be kicked out. GTFO and pack your trash.

But if you want to pull the pin on him, you need to pull the pin on absolutely everyone else. Run them all through the mud. Dig through all of their lives. Heat check every last little thing down to the bone.

But I suspect many of the woked out leftists here don't have the stomach for it. They want half measures to sooth their aching manginas. They want to sip on their Starbucks foam and pick out a new trendy man purse rather than see actual justice driven to the brutal bitter end.

Justice, real justice, is nothing but blood and socially acceptable retribution. It's savagery without the regret afterwards. People who scream for justice usually don't know the real cost to be paid to actually have it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

I read the article. They were #####ing about not following up the leads on the tip line.  The FBI investigated the Ford allegation.  There were only three other people at the alleged party which only Ford remembered. Who the heck else were they supposed to interview?  

In the article it states this

The FBI was called to investigate the allegations during the Senate confirmation process but was later accused by some Democratic senators of conducting an incomplete background check. For example, two key witnesses – Ford and Kavanaugh – were never interviewed as part of the inquiry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, moleculo said:

well, there hasn't been a SC justice impeached since 1805 when the independence of the court was still in question.  This isn't something that happens often and it ain't gonna happen here.

I agree

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Drunken Cowboy said:

If there are criminal charges he should face, investigate away. However, I doubt that is the case. I suspect we are past the statute of limitations.

 

While I agree a full investigation should have been conducted before he was confirmed, the only point if it now would be to make political hay with it. I am 100% against FBI politization like this.

Same here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, GordonGekko said:

 

I'm actually OK with this given specific conditions.

There has to be both a Constitutional and a logistical pathway for this to actually work.

1) It's a fair argument that there should be another alternative besides impeachment to remove a sitting SCOTUS Justice. Much of this rides on the issue of lifetime appointment. Also this is the one area of government where an absolutely zero tolerance/draconian level of scrutiny is required at all times.

2) It's also a fair argument that what constitutes "good behavior" and thus implied "misbehavior", as per the Founders intent via Article II when drafting the Constitution, is too unwieldy to unpack fairly without partisan angling. Hence, you need new law via a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck trying to pass that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

3) It's simply not viable to have a situation where the judicial system in place can remove a SCOTUS Justice directly. (i.e. Roy Moore) This violates basic checks and balances. Which leaves popular vote as one of the last alternatives, which truly shifts away from the Founders intent.

4) The ripple effect needs to be considered. If you remove a Justice for cause ( i.e. criminality/conviction/scandal) then what about their rulings while on SCOTUS? Those are all now tainted. The only option is to vacate all rulings while they were a sitting Justice. People need to ask if that's desirable and practical.

5) If you decide to run one Justice through a purity test, you need to do all of them. Every last one. Including those who are retired and dead. And retroactively vacate all  rulings for anyone who gets turfed.

6) If you remove a Justice for criminality, you'll have to turf them from US soil period. That means stripping them of citizenship and all property and deporting them. You must create a deterrence besides losing their bench. Does anyone want to see a former disgraced SCOTUS Justice spilling every last secret in the press and turning into celebrity self parody to shame the entire legal/judicial system in place?

Purity tests are usually toxic. However like any other tool, usually there is a specific role where they can be useful. However they are only useful if everyone is baptized by fire. Everyone.

You want Kavanaugh? Fine. If he committed a crime and it can be proven, he should pay. Not just his seat on the bench. He should lose his citizenship, all his money, all his rights and be kicked out. GTFO and pack your trash.

But if you want to pull the pin on him, you need to pull the pin on absolutely everyone else. Run them all through the mud. Dig through all of their lives. Heat check every last little thing down to the bone.

But I suspect many of the woked out leftists here don't have the stomach for it. They want half measures to sooth their aching manginas. They want to sip on their Starbucks foam and pick out a new trendy man purse rather than see actual justice driven to the brutal bitter end.

Justice, real justice, is nothing but blood and socially acceptable retribution. It's savagery without the regret afterwards. People who scream for justice usually don't know the real cost to be paid to actually have it.

Again, kavanaugh isn’t being investigated. They aren’t going back to interview him, or Ford. 
 

“Whitehouse said he is seeking answers about “how, why, and at whose behest” the FBI conducted a “fake” investigation if standard procedures were violated, including standards for following allegations gathered through FBI “tip lines”.”

They aren’t digging into anyone’s past at this point and it’s unclear if they would even if the finding was that the fbi did conduct a “fake” investigation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the moops said:

In the article it states this

The FBI was called to investigate the allegations during the Senate confirmation process but was later accused by some Democratic senators of conducting an incomplete background check. For example, two key witnesses – Ford and Kavanaugh – were never interviewed as part of the inquiry.

They didn’t even interview everyone at the party. At least one of them has said they were never contacted by the FBI. I’m sure that will come out in this investigation, and I’m really curious to find out why they weren’t contacted. Did the FBI interview anyone directly involved? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Apple Jack said:

This. The brazen way that seat was stolen is going to stick with some people for a long, long time.

Huh?  You guys keep saying this as if it's true.  It wasn't stolen at all.  You - and anyone else that says this - are going to have to make a better case than simply hurt feelings.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Huh?  You guys keep saying this as if it's true.  It wasn't stolen at all.  You - and anyone else that says this - are going to have to make a better case than simply hurt feelings.

Explain the reasoning of holding the garland nomination in limbo and ramming through barret in a month. Same people who complain that Biden said he’d be bipartisan but couldn’t get any republicans to vote for his covid bill are the ones who say this was perfectly fine. So I guess if democrats eliminate the filibuster, add PR and DC as states, secure voters rights, create gun legislation, and republicans are never in power again, it’s just them exercising their power. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

Explain the reasoning of holding the garland nomination in limbo and ramming through barret in a month. Same people who complain that Biden said he’d be bipartisan but couldn’t get any republicans to vote for his covid bill are the ones who say this was perfectly fine. So I guess if democrats eliminate the filibuster, add PR and DC as states, secure voters rights, create gun legislation, and republicans are never in power again, it’s just them exercising their power. 

I don't have to explain at all.  The onus is on you to provide proof of theft.  Everything that was done was done legally and per the Constitution.

Nothing was stolen but a lot of people cried and had their feelings hurt.  In the eyes of the law, feelings and tears aren't proof of theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I don't have to explain at all.  The onus is on you to provide proof of theft.  Everything that was done was done legally and per the Constitution.

Nothing was stolen but a lot of people cried and had their feelings hurt.  In the eyes of the law, feelings and tears aren't proof of theft.

My god you all are gross. :lmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Commish said:

Yes...throwing a temper tantrum like he did lashing out at all the individuals in the Senate is the ONLY way to respond to allegations of sexual assault against you!!!!!  Get the #### out of here with that bull####  :lmao: 

A good many of us had no real beef with him until that incident whether you want to believe that or not.  

Of course I believe you. It helps prove my point. You have nothing to base your thoughts on except how he acted in response to being accused of sexual assault. 

I am sure you would be super calm and react perfectly. You definitely wouldnt swear or use childish means of expressing yourself...errrr.... wait.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Of course I believe you. It helps prove my point. You have nothing to base your thoughts on except how he acted in response to being accused of sexual assault. 

I am sure you would be super calm and react perfectly. You definitely wouldnt swear or use childish means of expressing yourself...errrr.... wait.

 

 

Well he was nominated for a life time appointment on highest court for a job where is expected to rule based on the law rather than emotionally. His ability to hold back his emotions and act rationally should be taken into consideration. I think his behavior during the hearing was more than enough to disqualify him regardless of the allegations.

Regarding this call for investigation, I hope it goes away. There probably was political pressure on the investigation and possibly misconduct but it doesn’t matter. He’s not going to be impeached and he hasn’t done anything on the court worth being scrutinized for. I may not like that he was confirmed but he’s there to stay. Rehashing this is at the level of Benghazi and her emails - a political play with little payoff that I don’t think even does much for the base.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, crackattack said:

I can't think of a trillion was to better spend their time. Sadly this is democrats in governance.

I'm sure you had the same reaction to Benghazi and Hunter Biden and....

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, urbanhack said:

Maybe we'll find out who paid off his $92,000 country club fees - Plus his $200,000 credit card debt - Plus his $1.2 million mortgage, and purchased themselves a SCOTUS seat?

Just a guess - we'll never find out any of those.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

Again, kavanaugh isn’t being investigated.

 

The DNC has wanted his scalp for a very long time. They have a Super Majority now and while they don't have enough votes for impeachment, they will try to shame him first in the court of public opinion to see if he'll resign on his own then if not, use a legal pathway by trying to interpret Article II for the "good behavior" clause to try to force this into the hands of the judicial system outside of SCOTUS.

Of course Kavanaugh is being investigated. So is Thomas. So will any other seen as conservative.

The DNC wants no resistance from SCOTUS when their pet legislation, esp about election laws, gets fought all the way up the court system.

Right now the DNC either is trying to flip someone in the FBI or has already flipped them and is setting a long term narrative.

93 percent of all LGBT who were registered ended up voting. 25 percent were first time voters in the 2020 cycle. The return for Biden this election was in neighborhood of 80+ percent at minimum. They are disproportionately represented in Hollywood, where Jeffrey Katzenberg has turned major sections of Hollywood into a money printing press for the DNC. As AOC has said before, if specific voting blocks don't see a return after helping you get into office, they will begin to question on why they voted for you in the first place.

The LGBT community knew what they had in Anthony Kennedy. And they want Kavanaugh gone. Gorsuch at least gave them a softball last June ( Parroting CRA 1964) to bring the hunt away from himself.

Biden/Harris/Obama want to retain the gay vote. Even if it means having guys playing girls sports and beating the living crap out of them. Even if it means after a couple of hour long interviews, deciding someone's kid should be drugged up and should be a girl instead of a boy. Even if it means eventually sending jackboots into people's homes if they don't agree with the government telling them their children actually were never born biologically male or female.

Traditional liberals should be more concerned than conservatives. Because conservatives see it coming. It's no secret. Radical woked out cancel culture leftists want us broken, on our knees and begging and then line us up against a wall to be shot for thought crimes. But some of you traditional liberals are going to be ambushed. Some of you will be actually shocked when you don't match up to the required loyalty oath demanded of you. You might speak up when possession of copies of All Quiet On The Western Front and Gone With The Wind become criminal offenses. Some may not believe any of it until they find out their children are being encouraged at school to "report" their parents for deviating from the state's prescription for overall ideology.

Conservatives will have it dragged out. Public trials. Public executions. Big productions and lots of formality to hide the terror. But you traditional liberals? By that point, it will just be cheaper to send a few jackboots in the cover of darkness to stab you in the throat in a dark alley. Don't believe me? Look less to the endless gaggle of lefty lawyers and their prattle on this site and actually start looking to recorded human history.  It starts with silencing the opposition and changing the language and taking over the educational system. It always ends in blood.

Right now there is a conservative working in Big Tech, and he's being "investigated" every single day. He just wants to keep his job and keep food on the table. How long will he keep his job if it gets out that he's a conservative?  And the crimes of everyone around him, well you just don't understand, clearly it's (D)ifferent.

Kavanaugh may or may not be guilty of rape. Or worse. (And if he is, and it can be proven, and there is actually a true legal process and NOT this clear mandate for a kangaroo court,  I don't have a problem with him being stripped of everything and booted out of America)

But he's already guilty of being conservative and, in the end, that's all that matters. And on that matter, the "investigation" has never stopped.

Some of you believe this is about the defense of a supposed bigoted rapist. No, Kavanaugh doesn't matter, he's a means to an end. What this is actually about is defending the ideal of a world we want our children and their children to inherit after we all die, so they can live without fear. I ask my conservative brothers here not to hold anger at some, not all, of the leftists here. Because some here won't actually understand until they hear their children, one day in the near future, begging for their lives because they failed some arbitrary purity test.

Real loyalty comes from true brotherhood, blood related or not. It can never come from fear and extortion. I pity anyone here who can't or won't see the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

 

The DNC has wanted his scalp for a very long time. They have a Super Majority now and while they don't have enough votes for impeachment, they will try to shame him first in the court of public opinion to see if he'll resign on his own then if not, use a legal pathway by trying to interpret Article II for the "good behavior" clause to try to force this into the hands of the judicial system outside of SCOTUS.

Of course Kavanaugh is being investigated. So is Thomas. So will any other seen as conservative.

The DNC wants no resistance from SCOTUS when their pet legislation, esp about election laws, gets fought all the way up the court system.

Right now the DNC either is trying to flip someone in the FBI or has already flipped them and is setting a long term narrative.

93 percent of all LGBT who were registered ended up voting. 25 percent were first time voters in the 2020 cycle. The return for Biden this election was in neighborhood of 80+ percent at minimum. They are disproportionately represented in Hollywood, where Jeffrey Katzenberg has turned major sections of Hollywood into a money printing press for the DNC. As AOC has said before, if specific voting blocks don't see a return after helping you get into office, they will begin to question on why they voted for you in the first place.

The LGBT community knew what they had in Anthony Kennedy. And they want Kavanaugh gone. Gorsuch at least gave them a softball last June ( Parroting CRA 1964) to bring the hunt away from himself.

Biden/Harris/Obama want to retain the gay vote. Even if it means having guys playing girls sports and beating the living crap out of them. Even if it means after a couple of hour long interviews, deciding someone's kid should be drugged up and should be a girl instead of a boy. Even if it means eventually sending jackboots into people's homes if they don't agree with the government telling them their children actually were never born biologically male or female.

Traditional liberals should be more concerned than conservatives. Because conservatives see it coming. It's no secret. Radical woked out cancel culture leftists want us broken, on our knees and begging and then line us up against a wall to be shot for thought crimes. But some of you traditional liberals are going to be ambushed. Some of you will be actually shocked when you don't match up to the required loyalty oath demanded of you. You might speak up when possession of copies of All Quiet On The Western Front and Gone With The Wind become criminal offenses. Some may not believe any of it until they find out their children are being encouraged at school to "report" their parents for deviating from the state's prescription for overall ideology.

Conservatives will have it dragged out. Public trials. Public executions. Big productions and lots of formality to hide the terror. But you traditional liberals? By that point, it will just be cheaper to send a few jackboots in the cover of darkness to stab you in the throat in a dark alley. Don't believe me? Look less to the endless gaggle of lefty lawyers and their prattle on this site and actually start looking to recorded human history.  It starts with silencing the opposition and changing the language and taking over the educational system. It always ends in blood.

Right now there is a conservative working in Big Tech, and he's being "investigated" every single day. He just wants to keep his job and keep food on the table. How long will he keep his job if it gets out that he's a conservative?  And the crimes of everyone around him, well you just don't understand, clearly it's (D)ifferent.

Kavanaugh may or may not be guilty of rape. Or worse. (And if he is, and it can be proven, and there is actually a true legal process and NOT this clear mandate for a kangaroo court,  I don't have a problem with him being stripped of everything and booted out of America)

But he's already guilty of being conservative and, in the end, that's all that matters. And on that matter, the "investigation" has never stopped.

Some of you believe this is about the defense of a supposed bigoted rapist. No, Kavanaugh doesn't matter, he's a means to an end. What this is actually about is defending the ideal of a world we want our children and their children to inherit after we all die, so they can live without fear. I ask my conservative brothers here not to hold anger at some, not all, of the leftists here. Because some here won't actually understand until they hear their children, one day in the near future, begging for their lives because they failed some arbitrary purity test.

Real loyalty comes from true brotherhood, blood related or not. It can never come from fear and extortion. I pity anyone here who can't or won't see the difference.

Ok, but this is asking to investigate the FBI, so unless you want to show me one of your many links pointing me where Kavanaugh is being investigated feel free. I don’t know what the point of your diatribe is here. You sound crazy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

Of course I believe you. It helps prove my point. You have nothing to base your thoughts on except how he acted in response to being accused of sexual assault. 

I am sure you would be super calm and react perfectly. You definitely wouldnt swear or use childish means of expressing yourself...errrr.... wait.

 

 

Ah...the "but for the 90 yard run he'd only had 10 yards" line....I got it.  Think we're done here :lol:  

Perhaps this will give you pause, but I doubt it will....TRUMP didn't even lash out like BK did when accused of sexual assault.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how every time...every.single.time anyone wants to look at a figure from the right side of the aisle, it's a witchhunt or kangaroo court.  As if Kavanaugh's confirmation was anything but a sham.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jon_mx said:

I seriously was going to post this article showing how stupid and spiteful the Democrats are.  But here it was already posted and everything thinking how great it is.  :lol:

Please do better than generalizing people as stupid and spiteful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Ah...the "but for the 90 yard run he'd only had 10 yards" line....I got it.  Think we're done here :lol:  

Perhaps this will give you pause, but I doubt it will....TRUMP didn't even lash out like BK did when accused of sexual assault.

Trump didnt have a hearing where they asked him idiotic questions over and over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sabertooth said:

As if Kavanaugh's confirmation was anything but a sham. 

I agree it was a big sham. I mean the amount of airtime given to obviously fake accusations from 1863 was absurd. It was inedible on my hippopotamus. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2021 at 7:00 AM, Sabertooth said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/16/fbi-brett-kavanaugh-background-check-fake

I'm glad they are circling back on Kavanaugh.  He was awful in his interviews and never should have been confirmed.  Hopefully they will do a real background check on him that includes....oh I don't know...interviews with his accusers and himself.  I can't imagine the level of arrogance he has now.  

And it's not even FFFFFFFriday.  

are you also asking for Tara Reade to be interviewed and circle back to Biden's accusers ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Huh?  You guys keep saying this as if it's true.  It wasn't stolen at all.  You - and anyone else that says this - are going to have to make a better case than simply hurt feelings.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

No Supreme Court seat was stolen. Even if a seat had been stolen, it would have been the seat Gorsuch got, not the seat Kavanaugh got. But no seat was stolen because Garland was never going to be confirmed.

What was stolen was a PR opportunity. The Democrats wanted to be able to say: "The hearings showed Garland to be awesome, but the stupid Republicans stupidly voted not to confirm him."

Instead, they were left with: "The stupid Republicans didn't even give Garland hearings or a vote," which isn't quite as good.

But the seat never belonged to the Dems. Presidents don't get to have their Supreme Court nominations confirmed when the Senate is controlled by the opposite party. That's an old rule that dates all the way back to 2016, and it's not going away.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

But the seat never belonged to the Dems. Presidents don't get to have their Supreme Court nominations confirmed when the Senate is controlled by the opposite party. That's an old rule that dates all the way back to 2016, but it seems here to stay.

Yet another hallowed tradition that the stupid Democrats want to throw away now that they're in power.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

I agree it was a big sham. I mean the amount of airtime given to obviously fake accusations from 1863 was absurd. It was inedible on my hippopotamus. 

How do you know they were fake if they weren't investigated?  His whole confirmation was a joke.  But that seems perfectly fine to some.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

No Supreme Court seat was stolen. Even if a seat had been stolen, it would have been the seat Gorsuch got, not the seat Kavanaugh got. But no seat was stolen because Garland was never going to be confirmed.

What was stolen was a PR opportunity. The Democrats wanted to be able to say: "The hearings showed Garland to be awesome, but the stupid Republicans stupidly voted not to confirm him."

Instead, they were left with: "The stupid Republicans didn't even give Garland hearings or a vote," which isn't quite as good.

But the seat never belonged to the Dems. Presidents don't get to have their Supreme Court nominations confirmed when the Senate is controlled by the opposite party. That's an old rule that dates all the way back to 2016, and it's not going away.

Dems not getting to have their SCOTUS nominees confirmed by Republicans goes all the way back to 1895.   

Republicans had Democrats confirm Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas.

I'm sure you already know.  I'm just pointing out the false equivalency that I believe you meant as sarcasm.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sabertooth said:

How do you know they were fake if they weren't investigated?  His whole confirmation was a joke.  But that seems perfectly fine to some.  

But they were.  :shrug:

Not sure why you keep repeating this.

And you're right, it was a joke.  The behavior by the left and the false accusations by the left made it a complete and utter disgusting joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2021 at 7:00 AM, Sabertooth said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/16/fbi-brett-kavanaugh-background-check-fake

I'm glad they are circling back on Kavanaugh.  He was awful in his interviews and never should have been confirmed.  Hopefully they will do a real background check on him that includes....oh I don't know...interviews with his accusers and himself.  I can't imagine the level of arrogance he has now.  

And it's not even FFFFFFFriday.  

Surely you're not serious.  

What are you hooping they accomplish with it?  Justice for the victim?  We're a little far out.  I don't know the statute of limitations, but surely we've past it.  

Maybe we can just smear his name and try to force him to resign?  Wait, no.  That's what they did the first time and he still took the seat.  

This is nothing more than political theatre.  

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jm192 said:

Surely you're not serious.  

What are you hooping they accomplish with it?  Justice for the victim?  We're a little far out.  I don't know the statute of limitations, but surely we've past it.  

Maybe we can just smear his name and try to force him to resign?  Wait, no.  That's what they did the first time and he still took the seat.  

This is nothing more than political theatre.  

We could learn a lot.  For instance for instance from Ms. Ford: 

Q:  When did the incident occur?

A:  One of those hot months, like summer.  I was wearing a swimsuit under my clothes.

Q.  Was there a swimming pool there?

A.  No, I just like to wear swimsuits. 

Q.  Where did this occur?

A.  I don't know.  Some house somewhere around there.  

Q.  Why doesn't anyone else recall such a party?

A.  Well I didn't recall either until Bret became a famous judge.  You know I support abortion rights.  

Q.  Why didn't you tell anyone when it happened?

A.  Oh it didn't seem important at the time.  You know he is against abortion.  

And from Mr. Kavanaugh:

Q.  Do you recall a party with just these four people present.

A.  There was no such party.  

 

 

Edited by jon_mx
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

We could learn a lot.  For instance for instance from Ms. Ford: 

Q:  When did the incident occur?

A:  One of those hot months, like summer.  I was wearing a swimsuit under my clothes.

Q.  Was there a swimming pool there?

A.  No, I just like to wear swimsuits. 

Q.  Where did this occur?

A.  I don't know.  Some house somewhere around there.  

Q.  Why doesn't anyone else recall such a party?

A.  Well I didn't recall either until Bret became a famous judge.  You know I support abortion rights.  

Q.  Why didn't you tell anyone when it happened?

A.  Oh it didn't seem important at the time.  You know he is against abortion.  

And from Mr. Kavanaugh:

Q.  Do you recall a party with just these four people present.

A.  There was no such party.  

 

 

Link to this disgusting re-interpretation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snorkelson said:

Link to this disgusting re-interpretation?

What is disgusting about it?  It is all true including the part about abortion which her lawyer admitted partially motivated her.  She was able to provide zero specifics concerning time and location but she did remember her swimsuit.  

This idea that we have to be hypersensitive to people on your side but can be complete jerks to conservatives has to stop.  People need to be judged on facts and Ford had a very weak and politically motivated accusation which not a single fact could be collaborated.  We have no idea if this alleged party even occurred as no one including her friend recalls any party like she described. 

What I find disgusting is people using such a flimsy charge to degrade a brilliant judge who has done nothing in his life to warrant such attacks.  The irony is, Kavanaugh is looking like a moderate judge like Garland was proclaimed to be, while Garland is looking like a partisan hack.  

Edited by jon_mx
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

What is disgusting about it?  It is all true including the part about abortion which her lawyer admitted partially motivated her.  She was able to provide zero specifics concerning time and location but she did remember her swimsuit.  

This idea that we have to be hypersensitive to people on your side but can be complete jerks to conservatives has to stop.  People need to be judged on facts and Ford had a very weak and politically motivated accusation which not a single fact could be collaborated.  We have no idea if this alleged party even occurred as no one including her friend recalls any party like she described. 

What I find disgusting is people using such a flimsy charge to degrade a brilliant judge who has done nothing in his life to warrant such attacks.  The irony is, Kavanaugh is looking like a moderate judge like Garland was proclaimed to be, while Garland is looking like a partisan hack.  

Is this actual q and a or is this you just making up answers? This doesn’t appear in the transcript of the confirmation. Did she actually answer questions in this manner? 
 

Again I’ll point out that whitehouse is requesting that the fbi actions in the background check were done correctly and without influence, they are not looking into dr fords allegations (or those of the other 2 women who came forward.) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

What is disgusting about it?  It is all true including the part about abortion which her lawyer admitted partially motivated her.  She was able to provide zero specifics concerning time and location but she did remember her swimsuit.  

This idea that we have to be hypersensitive to people on your side but can be complete jerks to conservatives has to stop.  People need to be judged on facts and Ford had a very weak and politically motivated accusation which not a single fact could be collaborated.  We have no idea if this alleged party even occurred as no one including her friend recalls any party like she described. 

What I find disgusting is people using such a flimsy charge to degrade a brilliant judge who has done nothing in his life to warrant such attacks.  The irony is, Kavanaugh is looking like a moderate judge like Garland was proclaimed to be, while Garland is looking like a partisan hack.  

I stopped reading after the bolded.  Credibility =0.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, moleculo said:

I stopped reading after the bolded.  Credibility =0.

Echo Chamber = 100. 

Sorry you are unable to come up with an argument against a factual points.  

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

Is this actual q and a or is this you just making up answers? This doesn’t appear in the transcript of the confirmation. Did she actually answer questions in this manner? 
 

Again I’ll point out that whitehouse is requesting that the fbi actions in the background check were done correctly and without influence, they are not looking into dr fords allegations (or those of the other 2 women who came forward.) 

I presented it as what investivators could learn from interviewing Kavanaugh and Ford, which is the main deficiency called out in labeling this a 'fake' investigation.  The answer is nothing could be learned because the two individuals were questioned and we know their answers.  It is hypothetical responses using the facts.  

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jon_mx said:

I presented it as what investivators could learn from interviewing Kavanaugh and Ford, which is the main deficiency called out in labeling this a 'fake' investigation.  The answer is nothing could be learned because the two individuals were questioned and we know their answers.  It is hypothetical responses using the facts.  

I find your take on those responses appalling. If nothing else you could portray kavanaugh in an equally sarcastic way. He was the one dodging questions, refusing to take a poly, screaming at senators, proclaiming his love of beer. Your portrayal is disgusting. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

I find your take on those responses appalling. If nothing else you could portray kavanaugh in an equally sarcastic way. He was the one dodging questions, refusing to take a poly, screaming at senators, proclaiming his love of beer. Your portrayal is disgusting. 

Good.  I find liberals take appalling.  It is disgusting that the left was digging through high school yearbooks interrogating a respectable man about adolescence activities.  I find it disgusting how the left constantly dehumanizes people on right while putting people on their side on a pedestal.   I have no intention of piling on Kavanaugh as the left has thoroughly and ruthlessly attacked a man who has nothing but a well respected distinguished career for political purposed.  

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Good.  I find liberals take appalling.  It is disgusting that the left was digging through high school yearbooks interrogating a respectable man about adolescence activities.  I find it disgusting how the left constantly dehumanizes people on right while putting people on their side on a pedestal.   I have no intention of piling on Kavanaugh as the left has thoroughly and ruthlessly attacked a man who has nothing but a well respected distinguished career for political purposed.  

Just stop,  What you call “adolescent activities” I call attempted rape, which is a serious crime whether you’re an adolescent or not. 
As I wrote earlier, there’s no way to prove it, no new evidence that’s going to come out, so I don’t think the Democrats should pursue this and I agree that it’s now become a political stunt. But let’s not start pretending Kavanaugh is some sort of pristine dude here. That woman who testified against him was totally believable IMO. He was not believable in response. Personally, I’m pretty sure this guy tried to rape her, and that makes him an awful human being, unfit for the position he will hold for the rest of his life. So spare me the outrage. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Just stop,  What you call “adolescent activities” I call attempted rape, which is a serious crime whether you’re an adolescent or not. 
As I wrote earlier, there’s no way to prove it, no new evidence that’s going to come out, so I don’t think the Democrats should pursue this and I agree that it’s now become a political stunt. But let’s not start pretending Kavanaugh is some sort of pristine dude here. That woman who testified against him was totally believable IMO. He was not believable in response. Personally, I’m pretty sure this guy tried to rape her, and that makes him an awful human being, unfit for the position he will hold for the rest of his life. So spare me the outrage. 

What you call an attempted rape, I call a created politically manipulated fairytale concocted decades later.  The correct way to refer to it is alledge rape attempt, and even that is being generous.  There is nothing that makes her story credible except that she has convinced herself it is true and it fits the proper narrative.  She never even thought about this story under decades later when it came up in therapy.  Such a memory that not a shred of evidence to validate it, is so completely unreliable.  The human brain is an atrocious memory device no matter how much you want the story to be true.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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...