jkcerda on 18/9/2018 at 20:54
Quote Posted by Nicker
SNOPES isn't journalism, it's fact checking of memes, rumours, hoaxes, claims, whatever...
Facts. Remember those, JK?
only when it's convenient to me................................ :kiss:
(
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mark-judge-key-witness-alleged-205019717.html)
Quote:
“I did not ask to be involved in this matter nor did anyone ask me to be involved,” Judge said in a letter signed by his lawyer on Tuesday. “The only reason I am involved is because Dr. Christine Blasey Ford remembers me as the other person in the room during the alleged assault.”
“In fact, I have no memory of this alleged incident,” he added. “Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Ford's letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.
DEMOCRATS are desperate
Tocky on 19/9/2018 at 00:05
Sure sure. Perhaps all parties should take a lie detector test to find out? Oh wait, Dr. Ford already has. Your turn.
Draxil on 19/9/2018 at 18:09
She can't pin down the day or year, the location, how she got home after... but she's certain it was him, and not some other guy at this party in a county in Maryland sometime around 1982. Or was it 1983? Definitely summer! This is character assassination, and sets a new low for SCOTUS confirmations from the political party that already dropped the bar in the sewer with Bork and Thomas. Andrew McCarthy at
National Review has a scathing (
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-must-testify/) column on the subject:
Quote:
...
It is fashionable throat-clearing at this point to offer some vertiginous, ostentatiously sympathetic twaddle about how Professor Ford is credible in the sense that she truly believes what she has claimed, yet mistaken about . . . well . . . everything that matters. Sorry, I’m a simple man. What’s happening here is pure BS.
I don’t know if something awful really happened to Ford when she was 15. None of us will ever know. Apparently, Ford herself does not know basic facts either, since she cannot tell us where and when the alleged assault happened, and what she did in the aftermath. Giving her the benefit of the doubt that it happened as she claims it happened, she hasn’t come close to establishing that Brett Kavanaugh, as opposed to some other kid she has forgotten, was her assailant; that is, she
has not established that her memory of the assailant can be trusted when she cannot recall other rudimentary details. We can feel sympathy for her while nevertheless inferring that she does not want to testify because she cannot explain the oddities of her account. Or we can justifiably suspect that the whole thing is a partisan stunt.
If Democrats had believed Ford’s story was convincing, and had followed the committee-hearing process in good faith, we’d have heard about it in July, and we’d have been hearing about nothing else since — especially during the hours upon hours that Kavanaugh answered aggressively provocative, politically loaded questions under oath. Senator Feinstein knew about Ford’s allegation all that time and never uttered a peep about it — not in face-to-face interviews with Kavanaugh or in her rounds of questioning at the hearing. And don’t tell me Feinstein had to stay mum to honor Ford’s desire for anonymity. There is good reason to believe Ford had no intention of remaining anonymous (hiring Democrat-activist lawyers, taking a polygraph, etc.). But even if Ford truly wanted to remain unidentified, Senator Feinstein could easily have questioned Kavanaugh about the purported incident without mentioning Ford’s name. That would have preserved anonymity while adhering to the hearing process. Instead, the Democrats’ ranking committee member contemptuously undermined the committee’s process, and now other Senate Democrats are following her lead.
...
As I argued yesterday, you are not going to have decent, meritorious people in law and politics if Democrats are permitted to mug Kavanaugh the way they mugged Judge Bork and Justice Thomas, the way they try to mug every Republican judicial candidate whose nomination threatens to close off the courts as an avenue of radical social change — i.e., whose confirmation makes it more likely that the Left will have to try to convince voters and lawmakers in the democratic process, rather than have unaccountable judges impose progressive pieties.
The long-term goal here is to make the judicial-confirmation process so notoriously savage and demeaning that no sensible, well-meaning conservative or moderate person would agree to put himself and his family through it. The idea is to stock the courts with nothing but progressives and mediocrities willing to roll over for progressives. It is a disgrace that this should happen in this republic, and in connection with the courts, which are not supposed to be political forces, but which have been converted into an uber-political institution that progressives are desperate to control.
Through her lawyers she now refuses to testify before the senate unless the FBI investigates her claims first--something they've already declined to do because no federal laws were even allegedly violated. Democrats are transparently trying to slow-walk the confirmation in hopes of winning the Senate, and the Republican senate, in the face of her absurd demand, should flip the bird and hold the vote.
Renzatic on 19/9/2018 at 18:30
It's hard to deny the democrats are low balling things to clog up the process. But hey, dirty politics are the name of the game these days. It's not like anyone's innocent in the matter.
Though I do have to take exception to the last paragraph in the McCarthy quote above, because, once again, the republicans are just as guilty as the democrats for abusing judicial positions for their own interpretation of the law. Conservatives think liberals like to enforce progressivism from the bench, which to some extent, they kinda do. Hence why they nominate judges from hardline constitutional literalist camps like Federalist Society to block them, basically enforcing their views over their opposition.
"We prefer to view the constitution through the same lens our founding fathers did."
Yeah? They argued nonstop for decades over the various interpretations of the constitution, and they wrote the goddamn thing. Jefferson, Madison, and Adams weren't on speaking terms for most of the latter halves of their lives because of it.
...guess they set the precedence we've followed since, huh?
nickie on 19/9/2018 at 18:51
Quote Posted by Draxil
She can't pin down the day or year, the location, how she got home after... but she's certain it was him, and not some other guy at this party in a county in Maryland sometime around 1982. Or was it 1983? Definitely summer!
You know, stuff happens. A traumatic event will be forever imprinted in your memory. Time passes and you learn to exist with the horror mostly by trying to blot it out. Sometimes other things happen that bring it back. But although surrounding stuff like date and time and season or whatever, fades, you only have to close your eyes and you always see it. Just because you can't put a date to something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
This is a comment on your comment, not a judgement on this case.
jkcerda on 19/9/2018 at 18:52
shes making shit up, it's that plain & simple.
Renzatic on 19/9/2018 at 19:04
I think it's funny how we've politicized rape and sexual assault. How we can get so angry when one person does it, while so forgiving when someone else does the same.
Republicans demand Al Franken resign due to a picture that surfaced from him fake groping a women 30 years or so ago.
Republicans dismiss a woman's claim of sexual assault because it's inconvenient to getting a guy into the Supreme Court. And hey, they were just kids. These things happen.
And then there's Bill Clinton, who sexually assaulted all those women. They bravely came forward, accused him, and rightfully tarred him for life. (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations) Course the women who have come forward since Trump took office are all cheap sluts looking for a handout, and should be dismissed.
jkcerda on 19/9/2018 at 19:06
you are confusing "does" with "alleged" . .........................
(
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/21/17352230/al-franken-accusations-resignation-democrats-leann-tweeden-kirsten-gillibrand)
Franken had a few allegations on top of the photo, and it was democrats who also asked him to step down, not just republicans.
Quote:
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand called on him to resign from the Senate, and a stream of other senators joined her; he soon agreed to bow out.
as the junior United States Senator from New York since January 2009. She previously held the position of U.S. Representative for New York's 20th congressional district from 2007 until her Senate appointment. Wikipedia
Born: December 9, 1966 (age 51 years), Albany, NY
Office: Senator (D-NY) since 2009
Previous office: Representative, NY 20th District (2007-2009)
Spouse: Jonathan Gillibrand (m. 2001)
Education: UCLA School of Law (1989-1991), MORE
Renzatic on 19/9/2018 at 19:11
It's ALL alleged.