WWTBAM Bored

Jeff Flake wants to postpone the vote until the allegations have been investigated. Republicans have an 11-10 majority on the Judiciary Committee and that includes Flake, so that’s a potential game-changer. Bob Corker also wants a vote postponed until the allegations are investigated. If Republicans try to rush this through without an investigation, I don’t think they have 50 votes to confirm him right now.

In my view, the allegations are sufficiently credible that they must be investigated before he’s confirmed for a lifetime position. We already know that the Court can get along just fine with eight Members for more than a year. But if the allegations bear out, he simply can’t be on the Court. —Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Jeff Flake wants to postpone the vote until the allegations have been investigated. Republicans have an 11-10 majority on the Judiciary Committee and that includes Flake, so that’s a potential game-changer. Bob Corker also wants a vote postponed until the allegations are investigated. If Republicans try to rush this through without an investigation, I don’t think they have 50 votes to confirm him right now.

In my view, the allegations are sufficiently credible that they must be investigated before he’s confirmed for a lifetime position. We already know that the Court can get along just fine with eight Members for more than a year. But if the allegations bear out, he simply can’t be on the Court. —Bob

Well, here we go again. It's her word against his. Or his word against hers. Is there any proof? How can it be proven or disproven? The timing and the purpose seem very fishy to me. And since Kavanaugh has been nominated and had to be confirmed before, why this hasn't come up before is also rather fishy.

What I'd like to see, just once, is if the charges can be disproven, though I don't see how, is that the false accuser get SEVERELY punished, to try and discourage false charges from being leveled against anyone in the future. One case I can recall that was disproven was the Duke rape case. But to my knowledge, nothing much was done to the false accuser. (From Wikipedia: Mangum faced no charges for her false accusations, as Cooper declined to prosecute her)


Of course, it seems to work the other way. Charges that can't be disproven seem to harm the accused almost always. And it is almost impossible to prove a negative. Except if your name is Bill Clinton, of course. In that case, even proven charges are ignored.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Well, here we go again. It's her word against his. Or his word against hers. Is there any proof? How can it be proven or disproven? The timing and the purpose seem very fishy to me. And since Kavanaugh has been nominated and had to be confirmed before, why this hasn't come up before is also rather fishy.

You didn't read the article. She's been talking about this in therapy for years, as evidenced by the therapists' contemporaneous notes. This is not a recent invention of hers.

As for how or whether it can be proven or disproven, the first step is to investigate and take testimony. Under oath. If she gives her account under oath and it proves to be an invention, she'll almost certainly be prosecuted for perjury. Presumably those consequences are severe enough for you. But this can't be ignored. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote: And since Kavanaugh has been nominated and had to be confirmed before, why this hasn't come up before is also rather fishy.

Do you know every appellate judge, let alone every federal appointee, who gets nominated and confirmed over the course of a year?

What's fishy is the way that the Republicans have tried to steamroll this nomination through without the usual time period for investigating and hearings. And the way in which they mysteriously found 65 women to defend Kavanaugh (even though those defenses don't really speak to the charges) within a day of the charges becoming public. That's what's fishy.

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Well, here we go again. It's her word against his. Or his word against hers. Is there any proof? How can it be proven or disproven? The timing and the purpose seem very fishy to me. And since Kavanaugh has been nominated and had to be confirmed before, why this hasn't come up before is also rather fishy.

You didn't read the article. She's been talking about this in therapy for years, as evidenced by the therapists' contemporaneous notes. This is not a recent invention of hers.

As for how or whether it can be proven or disproven, the first step is to investigate and take testimony. Under oath. If she gives her account under oath and it proves to be an invention, she'll almost certainly be prosecuted for perjury. Presumably those consequences are severe enough for you. But this can't be ignored. --Bob

The names ARE a recent invention.

There is no way to prove or disprove this. It is just slinging mud.

And Bob, what difference does it make either way?

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Well, here we go again. It's her word against his. Or his word against hers. Is there any proof? How can it be proven or disproven? The timing and the purpose seem very fishy to me. And since Kavanaugh has been nominated and had to be confirmed before, why this hasn't come up before is also rather fishy.

You didn't read the article. She's been talking about this in therapy for years, as evidenced by the therapists' contemporaneous notes. This is not a recent invention of hers.

As for how or whether it can be proven or disproven, the first step is to investigate and take testimony. Under oath. If she gives her account under oath and it proves to be an invention, she'll almost certainly be prosecuted for perjury. Presumably those consequences are severe enough for you. But this can't be ignored. --Bob

The names ARE a recent invention.

There is no way to prove or disprove this. It is just slinging mud.

And Bob, what difference does it make either way?

What difference does it make? What difference does it make?

If she's telling the truth, Kavanaugh tried to forcibly rape her. Only those who were okay with Roy Moore being in the Senate would be okay with an attempting rapist being on the Supreme Court. And at least Moore would have stood for re-election every six years. This is a lifetime appointment we're talking about. The charges need to be investigated. --Bob

Dr. Ford passed a lie detector test.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:You didn't read the article. She's been talking about this in therapy for years, as evidenced by the therapists' contemporaneous notes. This is not a recent invention of hers.

As for how or whether it can be proven or disproven, the first step is to investigate and take testimony. Under oath. If she gives her account under oath and it proves to be an invention, she'll almost certainly be prosecuted for perjury. Presumably those consequences are severe enough for you. But this can't be ignored. --Bob

The names ARE a recent invention.

There is no way to prove or disprove this. It is just slinging mud.

And Bob, what difference does it make either way?

What difference does it make? What difference does it make?

If she's telling the truth, Kavanaugh tried to forcibly rape her. Only those who were okay with Roy Moore being in the Senate would be okay with an attempting rapist being on the Supreme Court. And at least Moore would have stood for re-election every six years. This is a lifetime appointment we're talking about. The charges need to be investigated. --Bob

But you were O.K. when is was Bill Clinton doing the attempting. Why the change of heart?

Don't give me your "whataboutism" crap. I'm not defending either, just wanting to understand your different positions on the matter, because from where I sit it looks like, to you, as long as someone is a Democrat, attempted and actual rape is O.K. Juanita Brodrick's and Paula Jone's accusations were not 40 years later. They were much more credible than this charge. And it wasn't Bill Clinton's high school behavior, either. It was his adult office holder behavior.

I deleted grabienews links since they f!@#ed up.

Beebs52 wrote:https://news.grabien.com/story-8-reason ... hs-accuser

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/grabien-news/

Based on what I'm hearing now, I would be very surprised is she is the only woman to come forward against Kavanaugh.

silverscreenselect wrote:
Based on what I'm hearing now

Are you talking to yourself out loud again?

silverscreenselect wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:https://news.grabien.com/story-8-reason ... hs-accuser

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/grabien-news/

Based on what I'm hearing now, I would be very surprised is she is the only woman to come forward against Kavanaugh.

What are you hearing and from whom?

Here's a description of Grabien:

Grabien is a marketplace where users can buy and sell pre-edited news clips. The company services the growing demand for news video -- enabling bloggers, independent journalists, news junkies, as well as established media pros, to find exactly the clips they're looking for. All content on the site is customizable, enabling users to trim audio and video clips exactly as needed before downloading. Files can also be shared and embedded and come with searchable transcripts.

Users who upload their own clips are compensated every time their content is purchased. Accounts are free. Users only need to purchase the site's currency -- Grabien coins -- once their monthly allotment of free coins is spent. Grabien users can also request TV clips. The site offers clips from more than 1,000 North American/European TV stations.

Translation: Grabien offers "news" articles for sale. If you download and use one of their articles, you pay them, and, since most of their articles come from others who upload them to Grabien, you're essentially paying whoever wrote the article. I could post an article describing some scientist who says the moon is made of green cheese and if people want to buy my article and put it on their blog, I make some money off it. Grabien serves as the middleman. Not surprisingly, the site has a lot of slanted articles, both left and right wing, since those tend to make money.

So, no one is actually vouching for the accuracy of this unsigned article in Grabien.

Beebs52 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:https://news.grabien.com/story-8-reason ... hs-accuser

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/grabien-news/

Based on what I'm hearing now, I would be very surprised is she is the only woman to come forward against Kavanaugh.

What are you hearing and from whom?

So, what are you hearing and from whom?

Beebs52 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
Based on what I'm hearing now, I would be very surprised is she is the only woman to come forward against Kavanaugh.

What are you hearing and from whom?

So, what are you hearing and from whom?

Internet buzz and an article in Politico about the women who came out in favor of Kavanaugh and are having second thoughts and the number of Republicans who are now having second thoughts about proceeding with the vote. I didn't say that there had been more women to accuse him, only that I would be surprised based on what I've heard.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
What are you hearing and from whom?

So, what are you hearing and from whom?

Internet buzz and an article in Politico about the women who came out in favor of Kavanaugh and are having second thoughts and the number of Republicans who are now having second thoughts about proceeding with the vote. I didn't say that there had been more women to accuse him, only that I would be surprised based on what I've heard.

Oh. Okay.

Beebs52 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
So, what are you hearing and from whom?

Internet buzz and an article in Politico about the women who came out in favor of Kavanaugh and are having second thoughts and the number of Republicans who are now having second thoughts about proceeding with the vote. I didn't say that there had been more women to accuse him, only that I would be surprised based on what I've heard.

Oh. Okay.

trump's announcement that this will be fully investigated sounds like he knows he'd better not screw with it.

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
Internet buzz and an article in Politico about the women who came out in favor of Kavanaugh and are having second thoughts and the number of Republicans who are now having second thoughts about proceeding with the vote. I didn't say that there had been more women to accuse him, only that I would be surprised based on what I've heard.

Oh. Okay.

trump's announcement that this will be fully investigated sounds like he knows he'd better not screw with it.

No sane person would screw with it. QED on Trump's sanity.

Beebs52 wrote:No sane person would screw with it. QED on Trump's sanity.

No, on his advisors. He's crazy as a loon.

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:No sane person would screw with it. QED on Trump's sanity.

No, on his advisors. He's crazy as a loon.

Oh. Okay.

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:No sane person would screw with it. QED on Trump's sanity.

No, on his advisors. He's crazy as a loon.

Quoteth the loon.

Kavanaugh and Ford will testify before the Committee on Monday. Can't wait to see what the 'protesters' do.
So she'll say he did it, he'll deny it. Everyone who believes her now will still believe her, and everyone who believes him will still believe him. But there will be more to argue about. Whooooppppeee!

I think I need to revisit my high school year books to see if any of the boys who made awkward passes have amounted to anything. You know, in case I feel traumatized in the next decade or so.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Kavanaugh and Ford will testify before the Committee on Monday. Can't wait to see what the 'protesters' do.
So she'll say he did it, he'll deny it. Everyone who believes her now will still believe her, and everyone who believes him will still believe him. But there will be more to argue about. Whooooppppeee!

It's amazing that you can know what effect the testimony under oath will have before you've even heard it. --Bob

tlynn78 wrote:I think I need to revisit my high school year books to see if any of the boys who made awkward passes have amounted to anything. You know, in case I feel traumatized in the next decade or so.

Did you read the allegations? What was described was much more than an awkward pass. It was attempted forcible rape. Dr. Ford claims that Kavanaugh forced her onto a bed, laid on top of her, clumsily tried to get her clothes off her, ground his body against hers, and when she protested, covered her mouth with his hand to prevent her from crying out.

Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose it happened that there was video of the incident that completely bears out Dr. Ford's account. Would you still support the Kavanaugh appointment? Is the issue that (not yet having heard what she has to say) you've already decided not to believe her? Or is it that even if you do believe her, you're still okay with Kavanaugh on the Court?

I'm not suggesting, by the way, that the appropriate standard is reasonable doubt. It's not. No one has a right to a Supreme Court appointment. The appropriate standard for the Senate to apply here is preponderance of the evidence. --Bob