WWTBAM Bored

earendel wrote:So now that the woman has come forward, and there is evidence that she reported this to a therapist years ago, does this change anyone's opinion? Of course not.

She reported an assault by four men (according to the therapist). But she never (conveniently) gave names. She in essence had a wild card (accusation) ready to be used when needed. Since all other efforts to thwart the appointment have failed, the DNC machine called in the wild card.

Is that what I believe? I don't know. I'm trying to keep from having an opinion on the truthfulness of the accusation because I believe it to be irrelevant.

Bob Juch wrote:

earendel wrote:So now that the woman has come forward, and there is evidence that she reported this to a therapist years ago, does this change anyone's opinion? Of course not.

It changed my opinion.

As Beebs would say: Oh, Please....

BackInTex wrote: Since all other efforts to thwart the appointment have failed, the DNC machine called in the wild card.

It's good to know that at least 50 Senators had let you know that they intended to vote to confirm Cavanaugh before all this came out.

earendel wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

earendel wrote:So now that the woman has come forward, and there is evidence that she reported this to a therapist years ago, does this change anyone's opinion? Of course not.

It changed my opinion.

You supported Kavanaugh before this?

No, I was waiting for more proof of Dr. Ford's allegation. It was sounding like just "he said, she said."

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Since all other efforts to thwart the appointment have failed, the DNC machine called in the wild card.

It's good to know that at least 50 Senators had let you know that they intended to vote to confirm Cavanaugh before all this came out.

Feinstein knew about this since July. As Sen Kennedy has said, she said nothing about it when she met with him privately, she said nothing about it during the closed committee meetings, and she said nothing about it during the confirmation hearings. Then she conveniently brings it up AFTER the hearings. The pure as snow democrats have publicly announced before the hearings that they would do whatever they could possibly do to delay and sabotage the confirmation. They used the hearings as a political circus with their idiotic outbursts, both from the podium and the audience, and an audition for the next presidential election. If they were truly concerned about this woman's well being, they would have confronted Kavanaugh privately about it. The dems have established a long record of using sexual accusations as a political tool.

Excuse us for our suspicion.

Bob Juch wrote:

earendel wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: It changed my opinion.

You supported Kavanaugh before this?

No, I was waiting for more proof of Dr. Ford's allegation. It was sounding like just "he said, she said."

Oh, please. Don't try and convince anybody that you had an open mind. We know better.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Feinstein knew about this since July. As Sen Kennedy has said, she said nothing about it when she met with him privately, she said nothing about it during the closed committee meetings, and she said nothing about it during the confirmation hearings. Then she conveniently brings it up AFTER the hearings.

My view is that there is probably some degree of political theater involved here. If so, so what? The Republicans gave up any right to complain about pulling stunts in the judicial nominating process when they wouldn't even grant Merrick Garland a hearing. I didn't hear you complaining about how unfair what they were doing two years ago was.

It looks like Diane Feinstein outplayed Charles Grassley on this one and let Republicans once again demonstrate how cretinous their behavior can be (see Donald Trump, Jr.) for the benefit of the public that will be voting in less than two months.

Bob Juch wrote:

earendel wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: It changed my opinion.

You supported Kavanaugh before this?

No, I was waiting for more proof of Dr. Ford's allegation. It was sounding like just "he said, she said."

How does it not sound like that now? What’s changed? It’s now Brett said, Christine said?

My view is that there is probably some degree of political theater involved here.

Here is the closest aSShole has ever come to veering from the strict leftist narrative. Congratulations! Maybe someday you can learn to think for yourself!!!!!

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

earendel wrote: You supported Kavanaugh before this?

No, I was waiting for more proof of Dr. Ford's allegation. It was sounding like just "he said, she said."

How does it not sound like that now? What’s changed? It’s now Brett said, Christine said?

Supporting evidence.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: No, I was waiting for more proof of Dr. Ford's allegation. It was sounding like just "he said, she said."

How does it not sound like that now? What’s changed? It’s now Brett said, Christine said?

Supporting evidence.

What are you calling "supporting evidence" besides the "she said"?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

My view is that there is probably some degree of political theater involved here.

Here is the closest aSShole has ever come to veering from the strict leftist narrative. Congratulations! Maybe someday you can learn to think for yourself!!!!!

This entire confirmation process has been game playing by Grassley and McConnell. The Democrats are finally fighting fire with fire and they've got what they want, a public forum narrowed down to an issue that the public understands a lot better than most of what was argued during the earlier hearings.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
How does it not sound like that now? What’s changed? It’s now Brett said, Christine said?

Supporting evidence.

What are you calling "supporting evidence" besides the "she said"?

The clear evidence that this account is not a recent invention. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Supporting evidence.

What are you calling "supporting evidence" besides the "she said"?

The clear evidence that this account is not a recent invention. --Bob

What "clear" evidence Bob? What evidence is not "she said"?

This is a simple question. Is there ANY evidence that is NOT "she said"? If so, what?

"She said" years ago is still "she said".

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Supporting evidence.

What are you calling "supporting evidence" besides the "she said"?

The clear evidence that this account is not a recent invention. --Bob

The evidence is not clear. You are supposedly a lawyer. And above average one by your own account. No specific date, no time, no specific location, no physical evidence. The other named witness denies it ever happened. Guilty until proven innocent? How can this be proven or disproven? If this was in the legal system it would certainly fail because of lack of evidence. So the dems brought it into the court of public opinion, where they can control it. Can't you see that?

The intent here is obvious. This man had an impeccable reputation up to this point in his life. Because he is not of the correct political persuasion for a certain segment of the population and it looks like he will be appointed to the Supreme Court, it is imperative to find some way of keeping him off the Court. Whether it destroys his reputation is irrelevant.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: This man had an impeccable reputation up to this point in his life.

Well, if you had been listening to the confirmation hearings instead of just parroting Breitbart's take on it, you would realize that there's at the least, a substantial question whether he committed perjury during the hearings, not to mention his possible cover-up of his former mentor's sexual misconduct, a point which looks even worse now that he may have some skeletons in his own closet.

And while the evidence of the assault isn't "clear" in the sense that it took place 35 years ago, it's quite clear that this isn't something that Feinstein and the Democrats cooked up in the last couple of months or that this woman invented recently to make Kavanaugh look bad.

So, Kavanaugh is not the second coming of Oliver Wendell Holmes. The Republicans knew that going in, which is why they tried to persuade Trump to pick someone else. So, don't put all this on the Democrats.

it's quite clear that this isn't something that Feinstein and the Democrats cooked up in the last couple of months or that this woman invented recently to make Kavanaugh look bad.

Really? Outside the echo chamber, that's exactly what it looks like.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

it's quite clear that this isn't something that Feinstein and the Democrats cooked up in the last couple of months or that this woman invented recently to make Kavanaugh look bad.

Really? Outside the echo chamber, that's exactly what it looks like.

You need your eyes checked.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: This man had an impeccable reputation up to this point in his life.

Well, if you had been listening to the confirmation hearings instead of just parroting Breitbart's take on it, you would realize that there's at the least, a substantial question whether he committed perjury during the hearings, not to mention his possible cover-up of his former mentor's sexual misconduct, a point which looks even worse now that he may have some skeletons in his own closet.

And while the evidence of the assault isn't "clear" in the sense that it took place 35 years ago, it's quite clear that this isn't something that Feinstein and the Democrats cooked up in the last couple of months or that this woman invented recently to make Kavanaugh look bad.

So, Kavanaugh is not the second coming of Oliver Wendell Holmes. The Republicans knew that going in, which is why they tried to persuade Trump to pick someone else. So, don't put all this on the Democrats.

WHATABOUT ALERT! WHATABOUT ALERT!

You conveniently ignore the FACT that there is no evidence, only an accusation. Anyone can make an accusation. That's why we have courts, judges, juries and unfortunately, lawyers. To decide whether the accusation is true. Democrats, when they don't have a valid legal argument, sling it out to the media, which they control.

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

it's quite clear that this isn't something that Feinstein and the Democrats cooked up in the last couple of months or that this woman invented recently to make Kavanaugh look bad.

Really? Outside the echo chamber, that's exactly what it looks like.

You need your eyes checked.

You need your brain replaced.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: You conveniently ignore the FACT that there is no evidence, only an accusation. Anyone can make an accusation.

You just flunked Evidence 101. An eyewitness statement is evidence. As it now stands, it might not be admissible in a criminal proceeding as unsworn, but if and when she repeats it under oath at the upcoming hearing, it would certainly be admissible evidence.

As for your screaming Whatabout, there is no Whatabout here. There's only this one confirmation hearing and this one eyewitness accuser.

As for how the public will view this, their point of view is quite different from those who have their heads stuck up the right wing noise machine like you.

You just flunked Evidence 101. An eyewitness statement is evidence. As it now stands, it might not be admissible in a criminal proceeding as unsworn, but if and when she repeats it under oath at the upcoming hearing, it would certainly be admissible evidence.

Um, unless I am mistaken, the hearing is not a court of law. I could accuse you at any time of ,say, holding me at gunpoint and stealing cash out of my wallet sometime in the 1990s. I don't remember where it was, I don't remember when it was, but I KNOW it happened and it was you. and it was $103 dollars. Prove you didn't do it. Let's have an investigation.

silverscreenselect wrote:
As for how the public will view this...

The determination of guilt or innocence of a criminal complaint is not up to the public. That is called mob rule. That is apparently what democrats dream of and why they use these things as a tool.

This is an accusation that cannot be proven or disproven, unless a blue dress suddenly appears. Which is exactly what the democrats need to postpone or scuttle the hearings, which is exactly what they announced they were going to do before the hearings began.

right wing noise machine like you.

I got you babe

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I could accuse you at any time of ,say, holding me at gunpoint and stealing cash out of my wallet sometime in the 1990s. I don't remember where it was, I don't remember when it was, but I KNOW it happened and it was you. and it was $103 dollars.

That is evidence. You were an eyewitness to the robbery. It might not be very credible evidence, since the finder of fact might reject it out of hand, but it is evidence.

Eventually (unless he withdraws or Trump pulls his nomination), it will be up to the individual Senators to weigh the evidence and determine whether, in their opinion, Kavanaugh is fit to serve on the Supreme Court.