Jump to content


The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread


Recommended Posts


28 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I don't know anything about the 65 women who signed the pro-Kavanaugh letter. I presume they've been verified to have actually signed it, and that they stand by that?  Has any reporter actually talked to any of those women?

I haven't seen any thing substantial on it at all in regards to follow up interviews, etc.  My first thought in seeing that list was - who knows 65 women intimately enough that they would sign their name to the document?  It may all be good and fine and sound.  I guess he did teach - so you can know plenty of people that way.  But I would be somewhat concern if he was that 'intimate' with so many women that  they would risk their integrity by singing the document.    (Maybe I'm being prudish here:dunno- a bit Mike Pence like)

I'd like to know if a reporter has talk to the other 17 year old 'boy' who was in the room wt Kav at the time of the alleged incident?  He could & should verify the story. 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Dbqgolfer said:

Let's be honest, the only reason Dr. Ford and the Dems want an FBI investigation is because it will push the confirmation vote past the mid-term elections. It's the same reason Sen Fienstein Sat on the letter for 6 weeks.

How dare those godless heathen democrats delay a confirmation of a supreme court nomination. The republicans would never do such a thing for political gain.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, schriznoeder said:

 

 

 

Well, Grassley and the rest of the GOP have done everything in their power to turn this entire thing into a sham. Meet our unreasonable deadlines or we'll just ram our guy through anyway.

 

There is precedent for an FBI investigation. Trump and others who say "The FBI doesn't do that" are lying. They just don't want it to. Bush ordered an FBI investigation into the Anita Hill accusation in 1991. 

 

Plus, her hearings had something like 21 people providing testimony. The way they're demanding only Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford can testify make it abundantly clear they're doing the bare minimum and setting up a he said/she said situation where everyone can pick who they want to believe instead of getting at the truth of the matter.

 

And in a he said/she said situation, they're free to attack Dr. Ford and impugn her motives. Many in the GOP already are. Heck, people on this very board are joining in.

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

57 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Well, Grassley and the rest of the GOP have done everything in their power to turn this entire thing into a sham. Meet our unreasonable deadlines or we'll just ram our guy through anyway.

 

There is precedent for an FBI investigation. Trump and others who say "The FBI doesn't do that" are lying. They just don't want it to. Bush ordered an FBI investigation into the Anita Hill accusation in 1991. 

 

Plus, her hearings had something like 21 people providing testimony. The way they're demanding only Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford can testify make it abundantly clear they're doing the bare minimum and setting up a he said/she said situation where everyone can pick who they want to believe instead of getting at the truth of the matter.

 

And in a he said/she said situation, they're free to attack Dr. Ford and impugn her motives. Many in the GOP already are. Heck, people on this very board are joining in.

 

 

 

I just read (headline only) that it took the FBI 3 days to conduct the investigation on Anita Hill’s claims. There’s no excuse not to let that happen.

 

They also have no excuse not to interview Mark Judge. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, LumberJackSker said:

How dare those godless heathen democrats delay a confirmation of a supreme court nomination. The republicans would never do such a thing for political gain.

Of course the Republicans were honest about what they were doing in following a rule that Joe Biden suggested in 1992 that a President shouldn't nominate a Supreme Court Justice during an election year; and of course it was political maneuvering.

 

The Democrats are pretending to care about an alleged, unreported, misdemeanor assault from 35 years ago, that they knew about 2 1/2 months ago, only to bring it up after the confirmation hearings had concluded, with one purpose, to delay the confirmation.  If Feinstein truly cared about this, she would have asked Kavanaugh about it in her private interviews with him.

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

I haven't seen any thing substantial on it at all in regards to follow up interviews, etc.  My first thought in seeing that list was - who knows 65 women intimately enough that they would sign their name to the document?  It may all be good and fine and sound.  I guess he did teach - so you can know plenty of people that way.  But I would be somewhat concern if he was that 'intimate' with so many women that  they would risk their integrity by singing the document.    (Maybe I'm being prudish here:dunno- a bit Mike Pence like)

I'd like to know if a reporter has talk to the other 17 year old 'boy' who was in the room wt Kav at the time of the alleged incident?  He could & should verify the story. 

He has sent a letter to the Judiciary committee stating that he has no recollection of this alleged assault occurring. 

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Wouldn't it be easier if everyone just acknowledged that this whole flap is less about morals and an alleged misdemeanor from 36 years ago....and more about the future status of Roe v Wade...? :wacko:

I don't think it is only about Roe v Wade, but it is certainly more about the direction of the court than it is the alleged incident.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

28 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said:

So, Dr. Ford says she told no one, but "many of them heard about it in School?"  So, to believe both of these ladies, we have to believe that a 17 year old Brett Kavanaugh ran around telling people he did this....doesn't seem likely.

 

 

Dunno how many teenagers you’ve met. And I don’t think people had the same attitude about what happened that long ago. Especially not a bunch of teenagers.

 

When I was in HS (not that long ago) everyone knew about a guy peeing on another guy in the bathroom while he was held down and I’d consider that assault as well. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Dunno how many teenagers you’ve met. And I don’t think people had the same attitude about what happened that long ago. Especially not a bunch of teenagers.

 

When I was in HS (not that long ago) everyone knew about a guy peeing on another guy in the bathroom while he was held down and I’d consider that assault as well. 

But my guess is one of the following occurred.

1) The boy being held down told someone (Dr. Ford said she told no one)

2) The boy doing the peeing told someone (Judge Kavanaugh said he didn't do it)

3) The boys holding down the boy told someone (The only other person allegedly in the room, said this didn't happen)

4) Someone else saw it (There are no witnesses in this case)

 

Without one of those four things happening, how can "many people hear about it"?

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said:

But my guess is one of the following occurred.

1) The boy being held down told someone (Dr. Ford said she told no one)

2) The boy doing the peeing told someone (Judge Kavanaugh said he didn't do it)

3) The boys holding down the boy told someone (The only other person allegedly in the room, said this didn't happen)

4) Someone else saw it (There are no witnesses in this case)

 

Without one of those four things happening, how can "many people hear about it"?

 

 

Is it really that hard for you to believe that at 17 they told people about this but they’re denying it now?

 

It doesn’t seem like a stretch to me, at all. 

 

If the boys I’m talking about really did this, they would probably deny it now/not want to talk about it. And they’d know everyone else only knew the rumor. At the time, at 15 or so, I just felt embarrassed for the guy who got peed on. Now I feel much differently about it. 

 

The above just isn’t a good argument that it didn’t happen, nor is it a good argument that the woman who wrote the letter is making things up. 

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...