Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thelawlorfaithful

The Kavanaughcalypse!

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, NVGiant said:

Really? Look at this thread. It falls exactly down partisan lines. You think that is a coincidence?

Who gives a crap about vomit on a message board.  Republicans have manned up, will allow the two to testify under oath.  It is up to her to present a credible and convincing story.  Short of that, the charges seem overstated, facts and evidence are missing, the accuser can't even state when or where it happened, and the few she has named have disputed her claims.  So far, no other accusers are not coming out of the woodwork.  DiFi is backtracking (can't say for sure it is the truth).  My call - nice hail mary by the Dems, but like most - incomplete.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

Who gives a crap about vomit on a message board.  Republicans have manned up, will allow the two to testify under oath.  It is up to her to present a credible and convincing story.  Short of that, the charges seem overstated, facts and evidence are missing, the accuser can't even state when or where it happened, and the few she has named have disputed her claims.  So far, no other accusers are not coming out of the woodwork.  DiFi is backtracking (can't say for sure it is the truth).  My call - nice hail mary by the Dems, but like most - incomplete.

Well, you know if the Republicans proceed quickly without a full and fair FBI investigation the attack ads are going to say, "Accused sexual predator pushed through by Senator X without a full and fair investigation.  Republicans have a history of overlooking sexual violence issues (Trump, Roy Moore, etc. clips)."  It is really up to the Democrats to inflict maximum political damage and pain on the Republicans for all the things they have done since Obama got elected.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Well, you know if the Republicans proceed quickly without a full and fair FBI investigation the attack ads are going to say, "Accused sexual predator pushed through by Senator X without a full and fair investigation.  Republicans have a history of overlooking sexual violence issues (Trump, Roy Moore, etc. clips)."  It is really up to the Democrats to inflict maximum political damage and pain on the Republicans for all the things they have done since Obama got elected.

Did Roy Moore win? Didn't think so. The Trump thing I got no answer for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Well, you know if the Republicans proceed quickly without a full and fair FBI investigation the attack ads are going to say, "Accused sexual predator pushed through by Senator X without a full and fair investigation.  Republicans have a history of overlooking sexual violence issues (Trump, Roy Moore, etc. clips)." 

C'mon, man! Damn near every single Born Agginer is a Republican and in their Good Book, a man's personal morals are irrelevant so long as he's anti-abortion.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

It was the early 80s after all. 

When I think of the early 80s I think of coke, which should be nobody's definition of a "good drug." If I wanted to feel jittery and anxious I'd drink a pot of coffee and go to work.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I don’t think believing something to be true makes it the truth. Some UNLV fans believe they have a nationally relevant basketball program when in reality they’re objectively hot garbage.

UNLV still has a basketball program? Seems like fake news to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

When I think of the early 80s I think of coke, which should be nobody's definition of a "good drug." If I wanted to feel jittery and anxious I'd drink a pot of coffee and go to work.  

These were rich kids though. They probably had access to Mom and Dad or Grandpa's Ludes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Well, unless those investigators actually had interviewed the accuser, then they really don't have any bearing on this matter, do they? Those investigations wouldn't have turned up an allegation that nobody knew about. 

Those investigations provided no other events that lend credence to the current allegations.  No support for the allegations.

 

26 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

The character witnesses are compelling, but not proof. The circumstances behind the allegation (named that it took 37 years to come forward) is compelling, but not proof. And everyone else says they don't recall anything like that happening, which isn't the same as saying it did not happen.

Her accusation is compelling, but not proof.     Everyone else saying they don't recall anything like that makes it more likely it didn't happen than it did.

28 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

More than that, the two men that were allegedly in the room have every reason to lie (which is not to say they are lying. Just that they would have motive to lie.) I also can come with motives for the Democrats to prop up the allegations, make them more than what they seem, use them to delay the process, etc.

The democrats have every reason to lie.  Their whole operation and presentation of this information, the timing, the refusal to cooperate and the use of the "Me Too", movement all are actions of a group who is making a false accusation to delay proceedings to achieve a political goal.

There is nothing so far that would lead anyone to think this accusation is credible.

One woman's accusation is not more credible that 5 people she claims knew about the incident and deny it happened.

34 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

What I don't know yet is why a seemingly successful woman would come forward with these allegations, knowing that this will most definitely be a nightmare for her, unless there was some truth behind it. Maybe she is a Democratic operative or a Pro-Choice zealot. Perhaps she hated Kavanaugh. But the allegations are specific and plausible enough  to warrant further investigation, even if they're not provable.

It doesn't make any sense at all even if the accusations are true.  In fact to me it demonstrates a mental instability that you would bring these accusations forward now of all times and not prior to today when you wouldn't get this level of scrutiny.  Especially when she seems to have zero supporting evidence.

Calling for the FBI to investigate a non criminal action, during some year in the early eighties and some unknown house is not a credible request.

39 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

The bottom line is that I want to hear this woman's story under oath, because I don't know yet the depth of her allegations, and I want to see Kavanaugh's response to those allegations under oath. Such a public and open setting isn't ideal, but at this point I think that the only way to move forward is to take the allegations seriously and make an honest effort to hear both sides.

The bottom line is you are not going to hear this woman's story because it isn't believable and she isn't credible and she won't under any circumstance ever testify under oath.   After all the whole point of this exercise is to delay a vote and destroy a political opponents reputation at any cost.   

She is being given an opportunity to testify in closed or open session.  I will bet you she won't take either option.  

This is character assassination, nothing more nothing less.  The accusation has no support other than one woman's uncorroborated claim.   Even if true, and that is a big if.   You cannot destroy a person over such a spurious accusation, and you can stick your politically correct bullshit right where the sun don't shine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Joe from WY said:

These were rich kids though. They probably had access to Mom and Dad's Ludes. 

Good point! I hope so for their sake. Because let's be honest, if these were coked-up prep schoolers it is almost assured that they tried to rape somebody at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Well, you know if the Republicans proceed quickly without a full and fair FBI investigation the attack ads are going to say, "Accused sexual predator pushed through by Senator X without a full and fair investigation.  Republicans have a history of overlooking sexual violence issues (Trump, Roy Moore, etc. clips)."  It is really up to the Democrats to inflict maximum political damage and pain on the Republicans for all the things they have done since Obama got elected.

Of course, democrats are the party of lies, deciet and personal attacks.

Play one:  call them a racist

Play two:  call them stupid.

Play Three:  Strawman argument.

Now maybe you democrats will have a fourth play:  Find a woman to accuse them of sexual assault 30 years ago during some year at some location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NVGiant said:

Good point! I hope so for their sake. Because let's be honest, if these were coked-up prep schoolers it is almost assured that they tried to rape somebody at some point.

Given those circumstances, if they hadn't, it would be a bigger story. A true bombshell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

These were rich kids though. They probably had access to Mom and Dad or Grandpa's Ludes. 

Ludes! There's a blast from the past.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Well, you know if the Republicans proceed quickly without a full and fair FBI investigation the attack ads are going to say, "Accused sexual predator pushed through by Senator X without a full and fair investigation.  Republicans have a history of overlooking sexual violence issues (Trump, Roy Moore, etc. clips)."  It is really up to the Democrats to inflict maximum political damage and pain on the Republicans for all the things they have done since Obama got elected.

The charges don't go away after he gets confirmed, unless of course the professor doesn't pursue them.

She should file charges with LE

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Well, unless those investigators actually had interviewed the accuser, then they really don't have any bearing on this matter, do they? Those investigations wouldn't have turned up an allegation that nobody knew about. 

The character witnesses are compelling, but not proof. The circumstances behind the allegation (named that it took 37 years to come forward) is compelling, but not proof. And everyone else says they don't recall anything like that happening, which isn't the same as saying it did not happen.

More than that, the two men that were allegedly in the room have every reason to lie (which is not to say they are lying. Just that they would have motive to lie.) I also can come with motives for the Democrats to prop up the allegations, make them more than what they seem, use them to delay the process, etc.

What I don't know yet is why a seemingly successful woman would come forward with these allegations, knowing that this will most definitely be a nightmare for her, unless there was some truth behind it. Maybe she is a Democratic operative or a Pro-Choice zealot. Perhaps she hated Kavanaugh. But the allegations are specific and plausible enough  to warrant further investigation, even if they're not provable.

The bottom line is that I want to hear this woman's story under oath, because I don't know yet the depth of her allegations, and I want to see Kavanaugh's response to those allegations under oath. Such a public and open setting isn't ideal, but at this point I think that the only way to move forward is to take the allegations seriously and make an honest effort to hear both sides.

I seriously doubt she will show and that tells me a lot about her allegations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Well, unless those investigators actually had interviewed the accuser, then they really don't have any bearing on this matter, do they? Those investigations wouldn't have turned up an allegation that nobody knew about. 

The character witnesses are compelling, but not proof. The circumstances behind the allegation (named that it took 37 years to come forward) is compelling, but not proof. And everyone else says they don't recall anything like that happening, which isn't the same as saying it did not happen.

More than that, the two men that were allegedly in the room have every reason to lie (which is not to say they are lying. Just that they would have motive to lie.) I also can come with motives for the Democrats to prop up the allegations, make them more than what they seem, use them to delay the process, etc.

What I don't know yet is why a seemingly successful woman would come forward with these allegations, knowing that this will most definitely be a nightmare for her, unless there was some truth behind it. Maybe she is a Democratic operative or a Pro-Choice zealot. Perhaps she hated Kavanaugh. But the allegations are specific and plausible enough  to warrant further investigation, even if they're not provable.

The bottom line is that I want to hear this woman's story under oath, because I don't know yet the depth of her allegations, and I want to see Kavanaugh's response to those allegations under oath. Such a public and open setting isn't ideal, but at this point I think that the only way to move forward is to take the allegations seriously and make an honest effort to hear both sides.

What’s her motivation for coming forward with this accusation? Just a “vindictive liberal C who wants to torpedo the first man up” in what is bound to be a long line of conservative nominees? NEXT!! “Whoops! Guess I didn’t think that through very well.”

Kavanaugh has a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS on the line.

What does she have to gain? Death threats? 15 minutes of infamy? A pleasant chat in front of a group of partisans on national TV? Sounds like a real hoot! “Where do I sign up to be a disposable partisan pawn who’ll be reviled by roughly half the country forever!?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pokebball said:

The charges don't go away after he gets confirmed, unless of course the professor doesn't pursue them.

She should file charges with LE

Is there any statute of limitations here?  I’m not sure what LE can do with 30+ year old allegations of holding a hand over a mouth and dragging off a bed,  The whole thing just seems weird and awfully convenient timing.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, THEUniversityofNevada said:

What’s her motivation for coming forward with this accusation? Just a “vindictive liberal C who wants to torpedo the first man up” in what is bound to be a long line of conservative nominees? NEXT!! “Whoops! Guess I didn’t think that through very well.”

Kavanaugh has a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS on the line.

What does she have to gain? Death threats? 15 minutes of infamy? A pleasant chat in front of a group of partisans on national TV? Sounds like a real hoot! “Where do I sign up to be a disposable partisan pawn who’ll be reviled by roughly half the country forever!?”

I agree. It doesn't make any sense. It's why the allegations have to be taken seriously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...