Law The Search For The 114th Supreme Court Justice: The Witch-Hunt Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

[Peteyandjia]

It's par for the course in discussions that you're dragging down, maybe. Some of us typically aim much higher. But, again, you entered this thread insisting that no one can honestly disagree with the GOP party line, did you not? And then you've continued along those lines. And while trying to dehumanize more independent thinkers, you're insisting that other people are the ones who are actually doing what you were really doing. Go back through the thread and read your posts. You've shown no interest in discussing the issues in good faith and no willingness to hear out any other position. You've sunk to backslapping with the vile Ingavovchanchin.

I still like you Jack

Even though sometimes it’s like talking to a wall

A wall made of partisan blindness

And childish condemnations

Spoiler: Mr. Savage...

 

[Teppodama]

She's not even sure it was Kavanaugh. She was admittedly drunk at the time, and had to "carefully piece together her fragmented memory with her attorney to be sure it was him"

Fuckin' seriously?

Ronan Farrow should be ashamed for publishing that report.

Every media face wants a piece of this action. Is normal.

 

[SBJJ]

I know you are, but what am I?

I know YOU are, but what am I?

Quality conversation we’re having here!

Sadly, it’s about par for political talk.

(Both amateur, & professional.)

Don’t feed him anymore.

 

[HereticBD]

I was joking about being real. Republicans already said he will not be subpoenaed.

EDIT: He is running away from being questioned on it.

He was already questioned on it. He's running away from the circus. Don't blame him.

 

[PEB]

She's not even sure it was Kavanaugh. She was admittedly drunk at the time, and had to "carefully piece together her fragmented memory with her attorney to be sure it was him"

Fuckin' seriously?

Ronan Farrow should be ashamed for publishing that report.

Did you miss my post she willing apparently does not feel a fair investigation without FBI involvement. Her lawyer apparently raised the issue.

 

[Teppodama]

So 250 pages in almost and has anything actually Happnewd or new info out? Arguing the same points forever?

Come on now. This story is like jerky, you gotta chew it for a good bit to soften it up and extract all that flavor before grabbing another piece.

 

[PEB]

He was already questioned on it. He's running away from the circus. Don't blame him.

Don't worry he has his superman comics to keep his mind occupied.

 

[SBJJ]

Did you miss my post she willing apparently does not feel a fair investigation without FBI involvement. Her lawyer apparently raised the issue.

Did you catch the new tape of then Sen Biden calling any investigation by the FBI bullshit during the Thomas hearings?

 

[Teppodama]

Don't worry he has his superman comics to keep his mind occupied.

Are we talking pre or post Doomsday? Its an important distinction.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I still like you Jack

Even though sometimes it’s like talking to a wall

A wall made of partisan blindness

This just shows a heroic lack of self-knowledge from a guy who entered the post to say that the GOP party line cannot possibly be disputed.

 

[SBJJ]

Don't worry he has his superman comics to keep his mind occupied.

Amazing Comics #1?

 

[emefer]

He was already questioned on it. He's running away from the circus. Don't blame him.

Questioned under oath?

 

[HereticBD]

Did you miss my post she willing apparently does not feel a fair investigation without FBI involvement. Her lawyer apparently raised the issue.

And we're back to "what the fuck would the FBI even investigate?"

I mean seriously, do you have a line at all when it comes to claims that shouldn't be considered credible enough for an FBI investigation? It's another 30 year old allegation, from a person who admits to being drunk at the time, who can't remember any details about anything, except for having flashes of a penis in her face at some point, that she had no idea who it belonged to, until she had some ridiculous hypno-therapy session with her goddamned lawyer.

FBI investigation...get real.

 

[Peteyandjia]

This just shows a heroic lack of self-knowledge from a guy who entered the post to say that the GOP party line cannot possibly be disputed.

Arguing with the self-made apparitions in your head for this long should be boring by now

 

[SBJJ]

Questioned under oath?

Nope. But did submit an affidavit like the other witnesses I believe

 

[Peteyandjia]

And we're back to "what the fuck would the FBI even investigate?"

This is the question many people don’t seem to be intellectually honest about. Even if one assumes she is telling the truth - which would be absurd - what then? Where could an investigation (by anyone) possibly go with this, realistically?

 

[PEB]

And we're back to "what the fuck would the FBI even investigate?"

I mean seriously, do you have a line at all when it comes to claims that shouldn't be considered credible enough for an FBI investigation? It's another 30 year old allegation, from a person who admits to being drunk at the time, who can't remember any details about anything, except for having flashes of a penis in her face at some point, that she had no idea who it belonged to, until she had some ridiculous hypno-therapy session with her goddamned lawyer.

FBI investigation...get real.

There is the fact that Mitch told President Trump not to move forward with this choice. There seems to be plenty to uncover. Got to go to bed sorry.

 

[Arkain2K]

#MeToo depends on the credibility of the journalists who report on it
By Megan McArdle, The Washington Post | September 25, 2018

After The Post broke Christine Blasey Ford's story of sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, I told skeptical friends to withhold judgment, because there was a good chance some outlet was already vetting a second accusation. Even then, I knew the first line of the column I would write if that happened: "It's now clear that Brett Kavanaugh's nomination cannot go forward."

We now have a second allegation, reported by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer of the New Yorker. And I must discard my prewritten thesis and start fresh.

Farrow and Mayer report that, as a freshman at Yale University, Kavanaugh allegedly exposed himself to classmate Deborah Ramirez at a drunken party. Two people say they overheard something about it and provided details that matched the story Ramirez told. A number of others described Ramirez's character and truthfulness; Kavanaugh's college roommate said that he was "frequently, incoherently drunk" and her story believable.

However. Ramirez said she was drunk when it happened and, according to the New York Times, recently told classmates she wasn't sure whether Kavanaugh was the student in question. She also initially expressed uncertainty to the New Yorker but somehow became certain enough to go on the record six days later. Her college roommate, who said she was "best friends" with Ramirez, was among those who denied ever hearing such a story; at one point, she speculated that Ramirez might have political motivations. And Kavanaugh's roommate at the time turns out to have been, by his own account, a close friend of Ramirez's — and not, one infers, overfond of Kavanaugh.

None of the people Ramirez said were at the party have backed up her story. Nor have any eyewitnesses been found, even though the New York Times and the New Yorker both contacted "several dozen" classmates. Moreover, the story had apparently been circulating since July in emails among classmates before the Times and New Yorker got it, making it somewhat less impressive that others were able to provide corroborating detail.

I think it's entirely possible that all this happened just as Ramirez remembers it. But given the thinness of the evidence, I'm frankly surprised the New Yorker ran the article, which went online Sunday. So are a lot of folks on the right, including those who had favored withdrawing Kavanaugh in favor of Amy Coney Barrett, a federal appeals court judge. They, too, had expressed the belief that a second allegation would be automatically disqualifying.

But they had assumed, as I did, that a second allegation would be stronger, not weaker, than the first. And among that group, I saw a sudden shift toward the view that Republicans must take the matter at least through a hearing. Otherwise, nominee after nominee would go down to a string of unverifiable allegations.

And so I'm writing a different column than I expected, about something I hadn't fully understood until I watched that seismic shift: the extent to which the success of #MeToo depends on the credibility of the journalists who report on it.

We hear the slogan "believe women" a lot, but even its strongest media proponents can't really mean it literally, because journalists know how often people tell them things that aren't true. Sources exaggerate their résumés, underplay things that make them look bad, make mistakes about what happened or simply outright lie. It's hardly a majority, but it's common enough that caution is always warranted.

Why do some people tell reporters obvious lies, easily disproved? Or trivial lies that damage their credibility, when the truth would have done just fine? Why do they attack political or personal rivals with falsehoods that would, if exposed, end up destroying them instead? I have no idea; what I know is that sometimes, they do.

But far more commonly, people genuinely believe things that aren't true or, at least, can't be corroborated. And thus the industry proverb: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."

As #MeToo has grown, mainstream media outlets have generally been scrupulous about getting that confirmation before they publish. It's hard to overstate the dangers when that filter fails. When Rolling Stone failed to check allegations about gang rape at the University of Virginia, the magazine both smeared innocent young men and caused other victims to be treated more skeptically. And when a weak story breaks into an already raging political conflagration, it not only creates skepticism under which future abusers can shelter but also threatens to turn #MeToo into yet another divide in the culture wars.

That would be a disaster for the country, and the women in it. Which is why, despite the risk of failing to say something that later turns out to be true, sometimes it's best to tear up that piece you expected to be able to write.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...104e9616c21_story.html?utm_term=.e8a3d0cf6ba5

 

[HereticBD]

This is the question many people don’t seem to be intellectually honest about. Even if one assumes she is telling the truth - which would be absurd - what then? Where could an investigation (by anyone) possibly go with this, realistically?

They'll find other witnesses with vague memories of drunken parties from 30 years ago, to corroborate her story beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Not that Libs give a flying fuck about what multiple witnesses have to say, or anything...

 

[Happy Man]

This is the question many people don’t seem to be intellectually honest about. Even if one assumes she is telling the truth - which would be absurd - what then? Where could an investigation (by anyone) possibly go with this, realistically?

It's two ways.

Either they are ignorant of what an investigation is and what they could actually find 35 years later.

OR, they know it's all a delaying tactic and nothing can possibly be found. Pure political motive. But they will play stupid and naive. Truly foul people.

Speaking of that, about Mr Savage. Don't waste your time. He's the most political hack here, while acting like he's not a political hack. He then just states anyone who ever disagrees with him is a political hack. It's insufferable. He deserves an MSNBC show. If I weren't a proponent of fair play I'd say bam him, but I am. So he gets to stay. Anyways madmick would reinstate him anyways