WWTBAM Bored

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:I threw a piece of ice at my sister in a bar about 25 years ago. I'd best get ready for a recall election.

Foolish move. Now it's on record. The NYT will publish it.

It's amazing how each piece of information that comes out that casts doubt on Kavanaugh's story, you find ways to belittle and dismiss it. Individually, they are not conclusive. Put them together and they paint a far more damaging picture. And, of course, we only know about the people who have come forward publicly, like Ludington, not those who may have disclosed information to the FBi in private to avoid the exact type of right wing harassment and belittlement you and the other right wingers subject them to.

Kavanaugh, after first trying to deny and downplay engaging in this type of behavior in high school and college, finally admitted to some degree of drinking, but nothing along the lines of what is coming out now. The more information we learn about him, the more lies and evasions come out. None of this conclusively "proves" that he assaulted Dr. Ford (the Groundhog Day mantra you keep returning to), but it makes her version much more likely, and at least in a civil case, the level of proof that's required is a mere preponderance of the evidence, in other words, more likely than not.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:I threw a piece of ice at my sister in a bar about 25 years ago. I'd best get ready for a recall election.

Foolish move. Now it's on record. The NYT will publish it.

It's amazing how each piece of information that comes out that casts doubt on Kavanaugh's story, you find ways to belittle and dismiss it. Individually, they are not conclusive. Put them together and they paint a far more damaging picture. And, of course, we only know about the people who have come forward publicly, like Ludington, not those who may have disclosed information to the FBi in private to avoid the exact type of right wing harassment and belittlement you and the other right wingers subject them to.

Kavanaugh, after first trying to deny and downplay engaging in this type of behavior in high school and college, finally admitted to some degree of drinking, but nothing along the lines of what is coming out now. The more information we learn about him, the more lies and evasions come out. None of this conclusively "proves" that he assaulted Dr. Ford (the Groundhog Day mantra you keep returning to), but it makes her version much more likely, and at least in a civil case, the level of proof that's required is a mere preponderance of the evidence, in other words, more likely than not.

Even trump said Kavanaugh had a drinking problem.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:I threw a piece of ice at my sister in a bar about 25 years ago. I'd best get ready for a recall election.

Foolish move. Now it's on record. The NYT will publish it.

It's amazing how each piece of information that comes out that casts doubt on Kavanaugh's story, you find ways to belittle and dismiss it. Individually, they are not conclusive. Put them together and they paint a far more damaging picture. And, of course, we only know about the people who have come forward publicly, like Ludington, not those who may have disclosed information to the FBi in private to avoid the exact type of right wing harassment and belittlement you and the other right wingers subject them to.

Kavanaugh, after first trying to deny and downplay engaging in this type of behavior in high school and college, finally admitted to some degree of drinking, but nothing along the lines of what is coming out now. The more information we learn about him, the more lies and evasions come out. None of this conclusively "proves" that he assaulted Dr. Ford (the Groundhog Day mantra you keep returning to), but it makes her version much more likely, and at least in a civil case, the level of proof that's required is a mere preponderance of the evidence, in other words, more likely than not.

Even after I explained it to you twice, you still don't comprehend Groundhog Day. I guess you never will. Here's another hint: I have told you what I think about the Garland situation. Using that as a brand new argument to anything by you is moot. I will not spend my time refuting it again, if you will not comprehend after I have done it at least 3 times already. I have told you a million times about your 'hannity, right wing websites, etc..' obsession, yet you continue to use that as a comeback when you have nothing else. It's like waking up every day and hearing Sonny and Cher. GET IT???

Yes, aSSShole, all these little things by themselves are nothing. Many of them have been proven to be false accusations, but it doesn't matter. They are added to the ones that can't be proven true or false and shaken, not stirred, amplified in your echo chamber, and they come out deafening to you.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Yes, aSSShole, all these little things by themselves are nothing. Many of them have been proven to be false accusations, but it doesn't matter. They are added to the ones that can't be proven true or false and shaken, not stirred, amplified in your echo chamber, and they come out deafening to you.

You have no concept of how the laws of evidence and legal proof work. Prof. Ludington's account isn't a false accusation; he's got a report from the New Haven Police Department (and an arrest of one of Kavanaugh's buddies) to substantiate it. As far as I know nothing has been "proven false" in regard to any of the three main accusers, although admittedly the third one appears considerably shakier.

There are plenty of people in jail or thousands (or millions) of dollars poorer because of "accusations that can't be proven true or false."

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Here's Rachel Mitchell's report.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-hired- ... asey-ford/

At least one group is happy to hear what Rachel Mitchell had to say:

Maricopa County defense lawyer Rhonda Neff said Mitchell has a reputation as a strong advocate for victims’ rights and as a fair and reasonable prosecutor. But her memo may open up a new line of attack for defense attorneys seeking to challenge cases in which victims have diminished memory or waited a long time to report allegations, Neff said. If in Mitchell’s analysis those issues helped undermine Ford’s claims, they might also be used to undermine the claims of an alleged victim in Maricopa County, Neff said. “We certainly are going to use this as a means of challenge,” Neff said.

Others, including Republican prosecutors are not so happy:

“As a former prosecutor myself, I’ve come to no conclusion other than the conclusion that there needs to be more facts to come to a conclusion,” said Douglas Wigdor, an employment lawyer who has represented plaintiffs in sexual assault and harassment cases. Wigdor, a Republican, called the memo “a joke” and “preposterous.” The memo does not address Kavanaugh’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, including discrepancies between his statements and those of his college roommates who have disputed his characterization of drinking habits. When Kavanaugh testified last week, Mitchell had been questioning him for only about 10 minutes when she was sidelined by Republican senators.

Tasha Menacker, chief strategy officer for the Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, said she has heard survivors talking in recent days about how their experiences match the experience described by Ford, including an inability to pinpoint when their assault occurred or other such details. “I’m afraid that survivors in Maricopa County are going to see this and relate to Dr. Ford, and be concerned about whether or not they would be believed,” she said. “Survivors are going to see this and say, ‘I wouldn’t be able to be consistent in my recollections either, remember specific dates either.’ ”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... 0913f148d6

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Yes, aSSShole, all these little things by themselves are nothing. Many of them have been proven to be false accusations, but it doesn't matter. They are added to the ones that can't be proven true or false and shaken, not stirred, amplified in your echo chamber, and they come out deafening to you.

You have no concept of how the laws of evidence and legal proof work. Prof. Ludington's account isn't a false accusation; he's got a report from the New Haven Police Department (and an arrest of one of Kavanaugh's buddies) to substantiate it. As far as I know nothing has been "proven false" in regard to any of the three main accusers, although admittedly the third one appears considerably shakier.

There are plenty of people in jail or thousands (or millions) of dollars poorer because of "accusations that can't be proven true or false."

So, I guess if one of your friends got arrested 30+ years ago, that makes you unqualified for a position of trust today? How far will you guys go?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
So, I guess if one of your friends got arrested 30+ years ago, that makes you unqualified for a position of trust today? How far will you guys go?

Do you have to work hard at being that dense or does it just come naturally to you?

silverscreenselect wrote:There are plenty of people in jail or thousands (or millions) of dollars poorer because of "accusations that can't be proven true or false."

Well, then, the path is clear. Let's just lynch Kavanaugh to assuage SSS's privileged white guy guilt.

Bob Juch wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Foolish move. Now it's on record. The NYT will publish it.

It's amazing how each piece of information that comes out that casts doubt on Kavanaugh's story, you find ways to belittle and dismiss it. Individually, they are not conclusive. Put them together and they paint a far more damaging picture. And, of course, we only know about the people who have come forward publicly, like Ludington, not those who may have disclosed information to the FBi in private to avoid the exact type of right wing harassment and belittlement you and the other right wingers subject them to.

Kavanaugh, after first trying to deny and downplay engaging in this type of behavior in high school and college, finally admitted to some degree of drinking, but nothing along the lines of what is coming out now. The more information we learn about him, the more lies and evasions come out. None of this conclusively "proves" that he assaulted Dr. Ford (the Groundhog Day mantra you keep returning to), but it makes her version much more likely, and at least in a civil case, the level of proof that's required is a mere preponderance of the evidence, in other words, more likely than not.

Even trump said Kavanaugh had a drinking problem.

1) You people have been claiming since before the election that everything out of Trump's mouth is to be disregarded as a lie. How convenient that you care about what he says only now.

2) He said no such thing. "Little bit of difficulty" only means the same thing as "drinking problem" if you're a moron.

silverscreenselect wrote:Well, here's one thing the six background checks missed. The incident that Prof. Luddington describes resulted in a call to the New Haven Police and Kavanaugh was right in the middle of it.

How do you know that the previous background checks missed that? Have you read them all? Should the FBI have let you know everything they ignored because it didn't mean anything?

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:If a friend of mine had done that to me, I certainly would have talked to them the next day and asked, "What the hell happened last night?"

And if someone asked you about it the next week, you might well have remembered the incident. Especially if your friend gave an evasive non-answer. But not 36 years later.

I remember plenty of high school parties 40+ years later. Especially those where there were incidents or which later were rumored about.

silverscreenselect wrote:I know I went to a number of parties in my high school and college days where people were drunk and carried on. I don't remember who was at what party or did what.

I do. Don't project your inadequate memory onto me.

silverscreenselect wrote:Then again, I wasn't sexually assaulted at any of those parties either.

Nor was I.

silverscreenselect wrote:And the way she says she believes Dr. Ford's story is an indication that she may have some not fully formed memories of the event that strike her as lending credibility to Dr. Ford's account without being able to quite sort them out.

My God, how much can you stretch and twist something to match your feelings? She, more likely, was trying to support her friend, but actually doesn't recall anything about this incident, as she has claimed. Dr. Ford's letter doesn't even include her in the list of people at the party, but somehow, she became a "witness" afterwards. Dr. Ford has only presented 2 pieces of evidence, her memory and the cherry-picked notes from the therapist. We don't even know if the therapist's notes angle is true, since she insisted upon using them as "evidence" until the committee asked to see them. From what I've read, she has refused to turn them over. To me, that sounds as if she has something to hide.

silverscreenselect wrote:Again, if you look at what experts on sexual assault memories say, Dr. Ford's recollections are consistent with those of an assault victim, as are the inability of others to corroborate her story. That's especially the case in situation where, as here, the victim chooses not to discuss it immediately.

Again, unless these "experts on sexual assault memories" have examined both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, this means nothing.

31 Lies and Counting

https://medium.com/@demandjustice/kavan ... ab6dee833d

Hey lawyersorts, could you represent someone with whom you disagree politically?

Bob Juch wrote:31 Lies and Counting

https://medium.com/@demandjustice/kavan ... ab6dee833d

The author of the linked article wrote:Kavanaugh: 31 Lies and Counting

Jeff Flake told 60 Minutes that Kavanaugh would not be confirmed if the FBI probe showed that he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

LIE 1
In 2004, Kavanaugh claimed

LIE 2
In 2006, Kavanaugh denied

LIE 3
In 2006, Kavanaugh denied

LIE 4
In 2004, Kavanaugh denied

LIE 5
In a 2004 written questionnaire, Kavanaugh wrote

LIE 6
In 2006, Kavanaugh again denied knowing

LIE 7
In 2018, Kavanaugh denied knowing

LIE 8
During his confirmation hearing in 2006, Kavanaugh said

LIE 9
During Kavanaugh’s 2006 confirmation hearing

LIE 10
Kavanaugh claimed that his previous testimony

LIE 11
During his 2006 confirmation hearing for his D.C. Circuit Court nomination

LIE 12
Regarding the current allegation of sexual assault

FINALLY! The alleged lies to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The first 11 "lies" listed by the writer don't even fall under his/her premise.

Beebs52 wrote:Hey lawyersorts, could you represent someone with whom you disagree politically?

Yes, but probably not in connection with a matter with political implications. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Hey lawyersorts, could you represent someone with whom you disagree politically?

Yes, but probably not in connection with a matter with political implications. --Bob

?

Nice
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... _else.html

Estonut wrote: I do. Don't project your inadequate memory onto me.

It's too bad there's no way to question your memory skills. Or perhaps you just didn't attend many parties in your youth.

Beebs52 wrote:Nice
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... _else.html

That's exactly the same point that conservative commentator Benjamin Wittes (among others) has made: Kavanaugh's testimony showed a lack of judicial temperament as well as overt partisan bias that is unacceptable on the Court. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Nice
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... _else.html

That's exactly the same point that conservative commentator Benjamin Wittes (among others) has made: Kavanaugh's testimony showed a lack of judicial temperament as well as overt partisan bias that is unacceptable on the Court. --Bob

I thought he showed a deep understanding of the situation was well restrained given the circumstances.

As a sitting SC judge, he will never be put in such an unfair defensive position.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:I just found a highly-credible analysis of the letter that Feinstein received. Perhaps this is the reason that Feinstein refused to release for months.

BOMBSHELL: Christine Blasey Ford’s letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein revealed to be a total FAKE… contains 14 glaring errors that could only be committed by a poorly educated writer

These errors were first noted by another PhD.

Well, I can tell you as someone who has spent a good bit of time writing and editing that highly intelligent and well-educated people can and do make a lot of grammatical mistakes, even in books that they work on for months. Many of them haven't had classes or training in English grammar and style since their freshman year in college, if that. That's why we have editors who are specialists in grammar and style.

And I'd add that few people are writing something as obviously personal and painful as what Dr. Ford recounts in her letter. Under those circumstances, she might not have paid that careful attention to grammar, and I would highly doubt she'd send it off to an editor before releasing it.

This has nothing to do with the stated topic, so y'all can yell at me now or whenever.

I noted a couple errors in the book my book club was reading, stating that the publisher's editor should have caught them. I was aghast when one of the other members with some experience in publishing stated that in these days of E-mailing or whatevering entire books of word processed material, they have dispensed with editors! I recently read Stephen King's Doctor Sleep, and there were a few minor miscues that if I noticed, some competent editor would certainly have noticed. Anyway, if King can make and publish errors because they're not going to be caught by editors who are specialists in grammar and style because those folkses are in short supply these days, anybody can make errors.

Estonut wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:31 Lies and Counting

https://medium.com/@demandjustice/kavan ... ab6dee833d

The author of the linked article wrote:Kavanaugh: 31 Lies and Counting

Jeff Flake told 60 Minutes that Kavanaugh would not be confirmed if the FBI probe showed that he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

LIE 1
In 2004, Kavanaugh claimed

LIE 2
In 2006, Kavanaugh denied

LIE 3
In 2006, Kavanaugh denied

LIE 4
In 2004, Kavanaugh denied

LIE 5
In a 2004 written questionnaire, Kavanaugh wrote

LIE 6
In 2006, Kavanaugh again denied knowing

LIE 7
In 2018, Kavanaugh denied knowing

LIE 8
During his confirmation hearing in 2006, Kavanaugh said

LIE 9
During Kavanaugh’s 2006 confirmation hearing

LIE 10
Kavanaugh claimed that his previous testimony

LIE 11
During his 2006 confirmation hearing for his D.C. Circuit Court nomination

LIE 12
Regarding the current allegation of sexual assault

FINALLY! The alleged lies to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The first 11 "lies" listed by the writer don't even fall under his/her premise.

Oh sorry, I guess it's only 20 lies.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Hey lawyersorts, could you represent someone with whom you disagree politically?

Yes, but probably not in connection with a matter with political implications.

?

I think he means one of those politically-charged patent cases...

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Nice
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... _else.html

That's exactly the same point that conservative commentator Benjamin Wittes (among others) has made: Kavanaugh's testimony showed a lack of judicial temperament as well as overt partisan bias that is unacceptable on the Court. --Bob

I thought he showed a deep understanding of the situation was well restrained given the circumstances.

As a sitting SC judge, he will never be put in such an unfair defensive position.

Remember that Red Tides are deadly.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:I do. Don't project your inadequate memory onto me.

It's too bad there's no way to question your memory skills.

I think I've shown here many, many times that I have a good memory, certainly better than yours.

silverscreenselect wrote:Or perhaps you just didn't attend many parties in your youth.

If you only knew. If 4 people getting together to have a few drinks constitutes a party, then I've been to thousands. If you mean real parties, only hundreds.