WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:36 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6333
Location: Montana
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:

Gee, I don't know, maybe because they are trained interrogators who know how to follow up on lines of questioning and get around evasive non-answers. I guess this means they don't need to question any potential witnesses to any crime as long as that witness had already made a statement about the crime.


Clearly they don't think so. Maybe you could advise them.
All we know is that the White House didn't want it to happen. We have no idea what the FBI would have done with the shackles off. --Bob


You have no idea they were 'shackled.' It didn't go your way, so obvs, it's flawed.

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:17 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17354
Location: By the phone
tlynn78 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:

Clearly they don't think so. Maybe you could advise them.
All we know is that the White House didn't want it to happen. We have no idea what the FBI would have done with the shackles off. --Bob


You have no idea they were 'shackled.' It didn't go your way, so obvs, it's flawed.
We've been hearing throughout the process that they were shackled. If the Republicans want to prove me wrong, all they need to do is make the report public. Then we can all see for ourselves. They're hiding it because they want to hide what they did.

They may get away with it for the moment. But not forever. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6333
Location: Montana
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
All we know is that the White House didn't want it to happen. We have no idea what the FBI would have done with the shackles off. --Bob


You have no idea they were 'shackled.' It didn't go your way, so obvs, it's flawed.
We've been hearing throughout the process that they were shackled. If the Republicans want to prove me wrong, all they need to do is make the report public. Then we can all see for ourselves. They're hiding it because they want to hide what they did.

They may get away with it for the moment. But not forever. --Bob


"We've been hearing..." Did you hear that from the report authors?

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:22 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 9371
Location: Location.Location.Location
Bob78164 wrote:
So has a retired Justice. --Bob


Good for you.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:26 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17354
Location: By the phone
tlynn78 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:

You have no idea they were 'shackled.' It didn't go your way, so obvs, it's flawed.
We've been hearing throughout the process that they were shackled. If the Republicans want to prove me wrong, all they need to do is make the report public. Then we can all see for ourselves. They're hiding it because they want to hide what they did.

They may get away with it for the moment. But not forever. --Bob


"We've been hearing..." Did you hear that from the report authors?
From Time magazine. Among other sources.

Prove me wrong. Don't forget to cite the pages of the report supporting your position when you do so. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6333
Location: Montana
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
We've been hearing throughout the process that they were shackled. If the Republicans want to prove me wrong, all they need to do is make the report public. Then we can all see for ourselves. They're hiding it because they want to hide what they did.

They may get away with it for the moment. But not forever. --Bob


"We've been hearing..." Did you hear that from the report authors?
From Time magazine. Among other sources.

Prove me wrong. Don't forget to cite the pages of the report supporting your position when you do so. --Bob


Cite this, sweetie. I don't have to prove anything to you, and neither does Kavanaugh.

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:37 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17354
Location: By the phone
tlynn78 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:

"We've been hearing..." Did you hear that from the report authors?
From Time magazine. Among other sources.

Prove me wrong. Don't forget to cite the pages of the report supporting your position when you do so. --Bob


Cite this, sweetie. I don't have to prove anything to you, and neither does Kavanaugh.
Not until the House Judiciary Committee uses its subpoena power to begin a real investigation. Which should be the first order of business on January 3. In the meantime, anyone who thinks this farce of an investigation was inadequate should vote Democratic. Because otherwise Republicans, spurred on by their primary voters (the only ones most Congressional Republicans are actually worried about) will continue to hide the truth from the American people, and we deserve better. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:51 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 9371
Location: Location.Location.Location
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
From Time magazine. Among other sources.

Prove me wrong. Don't forget to cite the pages of the report supporting your position when you do so. --Bob


Cite this, sweetie. I don't have to prove anything to you, and neither does Kavanaugh.
Not until the House Judiciary Committee uses its subpoena power to begin a real investigation. Which should be the first order of business on January 3. In the meantime, anyone who thinks this farce of an investigation was inadequate should vote Democratic. Because otherwise Republicans, spurred on by their primary voters (the only ones most Congressional Republicans are actually worried about) will continue to hide the truth from the American people, and we deserve better. --Bob

Righteous! Rock on dude.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
And Jon Ossoff will be appointed Minister of the Good and Holy.


A sure sign that Flock has no way to respond to a thread is when he trots out his Jon Ossoff shtick for the 100th unfunny time.


I got a-plenty. But it does no good. 'Cause you'll trot out hannity for the 1,000,000the stupid time.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6333
Location: Montana
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:

Cite this, sweetie. I don't have to prove anything to you, and neither does Kavanaugh.
Not until the House Judiciary Committee uses its subpoena power to begin a real investigation. Which should be the first order of business on January 3. In the meantime, anyone who thinks this farce of an investigation was inadequate should vote Democratic. Because otherwise Republicans, spurred on by their primary voters (the only ones most Congressional Republicans are actually worried about) will continue to hide the truth from the American people, and we deserve better. --Bob

Righteous! Rock on dude.


LOL - good thing the Dems are so straightforward. I mean.

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:25 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 9371
Location: Location.Location.Location
tlynn78 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Not until the House Judiciary Committee uses its subpoena power to begin a real investigation. Which should be the first order of business on January 3. In the meantime, anyone who thinks this farce of an investigation was inadequate should vote Democratic. Because otherwise Republicans, spurred on by their primary voters (the only ones most Congressional Republicans are actually worried about) will continue to hide the truth from the American people, and we deserve better. --Bob

Righteous! Rock on dude.


LOL - good thing the Dems are so straightforward. I mean.

Wear flowers in your hair. It makes all revolutions sparklier.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
From Time magazine. Among other sources.

Prove me wrong. Don't forget to cite the pages of the report supporting your position when you do so. --Bob


Cite this, sweetie. I don't have to prove anything to you, and neither does Kavanaugh.
Not until the House Judiciary Committee uses its subpoena power to begin a real investigation. Which should be the first order of business on January 3. In the meantime, anyone who thinks this farce of an investigation was inadequate should vote Democratic. Because otherwise Republicans, spurred on by their primary voters (the only ones most Congressional Republicans are actually worried about) will continue to hide the truth from the American people, and we deserve better. --Bob


The REAL investigation is why Feinstein hid the letter for 2 months while setting Ford up with a completely democrat controlled partisan lawyer, and had it leaked to delay the nomination.

bob-tel, the guy has had 7 FBI investigations into his background. The first one was right after college. He didn't have trump to shield him then. There were no shackles. (Is that a batphone word? I'll see if I hear it 50 times on the news tonite). If he had ANY history of being a slobbering sex crazed drunk, I think the FBI, unless they are totally incompetent, would have reported it.

The guy has served in several high profile, very sensitive positions since then. The vast majority, if not all, of the people who actually know him and worked with him have publically endorsed him and defended him against this accusation. As far as I know there has not been a hint of any questionable personal behavior against him until a couple weeks ago, and now he is a suddenly a degenerate reprobate.

How many background checks has Dr. Ford had? BJ (I think) has found a questionable list from a questionable source of 31 'lies' of Kavanaugh. There are many inconsistencies in Dr. Ford's testimony. I would make a list, but you will ignore them as we go forward, so why bother?

One of these people is lying or is misremembering. I don't doubt Dr. Ford had something happen to her. But, for what it's worth, and it's not worth much, since I have no say in anything, I don't think it was Kavanaugh.


Last edited by flockofseagulls104 on Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
From Time magazine. Among other sources.

Prove me wrong. Don't forget to cite the pages of the report supporting your position when you do so. --Bob


Cite this, sweetie. I don't have to prove anything to you, and neither does Kavanaugh.
Not until the House Judiciary Committee uses its subpoena power to begin a real investigation. Which should be the first order of business on January 3. In the meantime, anyone who thinks this farce of an investigation was inadequate should vote Democratic. Because otherwise Republicans, spurred on by their primary voters (the only ones most Congressional Republicans are actually worried about) will continue to hide the truth from the American people, and we deserve better. --Bob


Won't happen. They'll be too busy trying to find something to impeach trump for.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15458
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
They'll be too busy trying to find something to impeach trump for.


With the exception of a handful of hotheads, impeaching Trump is not on the radar screen for most Democrats. Certainly not like the ones who keep yelling "lock her up" at the Trump rallies.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:46 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17354
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:

Cite this, sweetie. I don't have to prove anything to you, and neither does Kavanaugh.
Not until the House Judiciary Committee uses its subpoena power to begin a real investigation. Which should be the first order of business on January 3. In the meantime, anyone who thinks this farce of an investigation was inadequate should vote Democratic. Because otherwise Republicans, spurred on by their primary voters (the only ones most Congressional Republicans are actually worried about) will continue to hide the truth from the American people, and we deserve better. --Bob


The REAL investigation is why Feinstein hid the letter for 2 months while setting Ford up with a completely democrat controlled partisan lawyer, and had it leaked to delay the nomination.

bob-tel, the guy has had 7 FBI investigations into his background. The first one was right after college. He didn't have trump to shield him then. There were no shackles. (Is that a batphone word? I'll see if I hear it 50 times on the news tonite). If he had ANY history of being a slobbering sex crazed drunk, I think the FBI, unless they are totally incompetent, would have reported it.

The guy has served in several high profile, very sensitive positions since then. The vast majority, if not all, of the people who actually know him and worked with him have publically endorsed him and defended him against this accusation. As far as I know there has not been a hint of any questionable personal behavior against him until a couple weeks ago, and now he is a suddenly a degenerate reprobate.

How many background checks has Dr. Ford had? BJ (I think) has found a questionable list from a questionable source of 31 'lies' of Kavanaugh. There are many inconsistencies in Dr. Ford's testimony. I would make a list, but you will ignore them as we go forward, so why bother?

One of these people is lying or is misremembering. I don't doubt Dr. Ford had something happen to her. But, for what it's worth, and it's not worth much, since I have no say in anything, I don't think it was Kavanaugh.
How many people attacked Al Franken for misconduct before the roof started caving in on him? How about Eliot Spitzer? Eric Schneiderman? Anthony Weiner?

The absence of prior accusations doesn't prove a damn thing. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9922
Location: In Texas of course!
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
They'll be too busy trying to find something to impeach trump for.


With the exception of a handful of hotheads, impeaching Trump is not on the radar screen for most Democrats. Certainly not like the ones who keep yelling "lock her up" at the Trump rallies.


The big difference here is that federally elected Democrats are calling for impeachment while it is the rally mob everymen yelling 'lock her up'.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:49 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17354
Location: By the phone
BackInTex wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
They'll be too busy trying to find something to impeach trump for.


With the exception of a handful of hotheads, impeaching Trump is not on the radar screen for most Democrats. Certainly not like the ones who keep yelling "lock her up" at the Trump rallies.


The big difference here is that federally elected Democrats are calling for impeachment while it is the rally mob everymen yelling 'lock her up'.
There's plenty out there that's worth investigating. But Congressional Republicans have their eyes firmly closed and their ears firmly plugged up. We'll see whether that lasts once a real investigation is under way. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15458
flockofseagulls104 wrote:

bob-tel, the guy has had 7 FBI investigations into his background. The first one was right after college. He didn't have trump to shield him then.


Leaving aside the fact that the Democrats dispute that there were no red flags raised in Kavanaugh's earlier background checks, the fact remains that we have one highly relevant piece of data now that the other six background checks could not have known about, namely Kavanaugh's overall temperament and demeanor and the statements that he made under oath, many of which have been contradicted or shown to be flat out lies. That more than anything is what caused Justice Stevens to change his mind about Kavanaugh.

Quote:
Stevens, a lifelong Republican who is known for falling on the liberal side of several judicial rulings, praised Kavanaugh and one of his rulings on a political contribution case in the 2014 book “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.” At that time, I thought (Kavanaugh) had the qualifications for the Supreme Court should he be selected,” Stevens said. “I’ve changed my views for reasons that have no relationship to his intellectual ability … I feel his performance in the hearings ultimately changed my mind.”

Commentators, Stevens said, have argued that Kavanaugh’s blistering testimony during a Sept. 27 hearing on sexual misconduct allegations demonstrated a potential for political bias should he serve on the Supreme Court. “I think there’s merit to that criticism and I think the senators should really pay attention that,” Stevens said


https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/re ... CimtNxpjJ/

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Not until the House Judiciary Committee uses its subpoena power to begin a real investigation. Which should be the first order of business on January 3. In the meantime, anyone who thinks this farce of an investigation was inadequate should vote Democratic. Because otherwise Republicans, spurred on by their primary voters (the only ones most Congressional Republicans are actually worried about) will continue to hide the truth from the American people, and we deserve better. --Bob


The REAL investigation is why Feinstein hid the letter for 2 months while setting Ford up with a completely democrat controlled partisan lawyer, and had it leaked to delay the nomination.

bob-tel, the guy has had 7 FBI investigations into his background. The first one was right after college. He didn't have trump to shield him then. There were no shackles. (Is that a batphone word? I'll see if I hear it 50 times on the news tonite). If he had ANY history of being a slobbering sex crazed drunk, I think the FBI, unless they are totally incompetent, would have reported it.

The guy has served in several high profile, very sensitive positions since then. The vast majority, if not all, of the people who actually know him and worked with him have publically endorsed him and defended him against this accusation. As far as I know there has not been a hint of any questionable personal behavior against him until a couple weeks ago, and now he is a suddenly a degenerate reprobate.

How many background checks has Dr. Ford had? BJ (I think) has found a questionable list from a questionable source of 31 'lies' of Kavanaugh. There are many inconsistencies in Dr. Ford's testimony. I would make a list, but you will ignore them as we go forward, so why bother?

One of these people is lying or is misremembering. I don't doubt Dr. Ford had something happen to her. But, for what it's worth, and it's not worth much, since I have no say in anything, I don't think it was Kavanaugh.
How many people attacked Al Franken for misconduct before the roof started caving in on him? How about Eliot Spitzer? Eric Schneiderman? Anthony Weiner?

The absence of prior accusations doesn't prove a damn thing. --Bob


There was specific evidence against Franken, Spitzer and especially Weiner. I don't know about Schneiderman, never heard of him.

No specific evidence against Kavanaugh, only an accusation. Show me the blue dress, bob-tel.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:35 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17354
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:

The REAL investigation is why Feinstein hid the letter for 2 months while setting Ford up with a completely democrat controlled partisan lawyer, and had it leaked to delay the nomination.

bob-tel, the guy has had 7 FBI investigations into his background. The first one was right after college. He didn't have trump to shield him then. There were no shackles. (Is that a batphone word? I'll see if I hear it 50 times on the news tonite). If he had ANY history of being a slobbering sex crazed drunk, I think the FBI, unless they are totally incompetent, would have reported it.

The guy has served in several high profile, very sensitive positions since then. The vast majority, if not all, of the people who actually know him and worked with him have publically endorsed him and defended him against this accusation. As far as I know there has not been a hint of any questionable personal behavior against him until a couple weeks ago, and now he is a suddenly a degenerate reprobate.

How many background checks has Dr. Ford had? BJ (I think) has found a questionable list from a questionable source of 31 'lies' of Kavanaugh. There are many inconsistencies in Dr. Ford's testimony. I would make a list, but you will ignore them as we go forward, so why bother?

One of these people is lying or is misremembering. I don't doubt Dr. Ford had something happen to her. But, for what it's worth, and it's not worth much, since I have no say in anything, I don't think it was Kavanaugh.
How many people attacked Al Franken for misconduct before the roof started caving in on him? How about Eliot Spitzer? Eric Schneiderman? Anthony Weiner?

The absence of prior accusations doesn't prove a damn thing. --Bob


There was specific evidence against Franken, Spitzer and especially Weiner. I don't know about Schneiderman, never heard of him.

No specific evidence against Kavanaugh, only an accusation. Show me the blue dress, bob-tel.
Eyewitness testimony from the victim is specific evidence. And we need a real FBI investigation, not this apparent sham, to know with any confidence whether corroboration exists. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:38 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 9371
Location: Location.Location.Location
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
How many people attacked Al Franken for misconduct before the roof started caving in on him? How about Eliot Spitzer? Eric Schneiderman? Anthony Weiner?

The absence of prior accusations doesn't prove a damn thing. --Bob


There was specific evidence against Franken, Spitzer and especially Weiner. I don't know about Schneiderman, never heard of him.

No specific evidence against Kavanaugh, only an accusation. Show me the blue dress, bob-tel.
Eyewitness testimony from the victim is specific evidence. And we need a real FBI investigation, not this apparent sham, to know with any confidence whether corroboration exists. --Bob

Shamalamadingdong.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:06 pm 
Offline
Evil Genius
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Posts: 9192
Location: Garden Grove, CA
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
How many people attacked Al Franken for misconduct before the roof started caving in on him? How about Eliot Spitzer? Eric Schneiderman? Anthony Weiner?

The absence of prior accusations doesn't prove a damn thing.
There was specific evidence against Franken, Spitzer and especially Weiner. I don't know about Schneiderman, never heard of him.

No specific evidence against Kavanaugh, only an accusation. Show me the blue dress, bob-tel.
Eyewitness testimony from the victim is specific evidence. And we need a real FBI investigation, not this apparent sham, to know with any confidence whether corroboration exists.
Umm, the witnesses SHE NAMED failed to corroborate any part of her accusations. What makes you think any other corroboration exists?

_________________
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:24 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17354
Location: By the phone
Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
There was specific evidence against Franken, Spitzer and especially Weiner. I don't know about Schneiderman, never heard of him.

No specific evidence against Kavanaugh, only an accusation. Show me the blue dress, bob-tel.
Eyewitness testimony from the victim is specific evidence. And we need a real FBI investigation, not this apparent sham, to know with any confidence whether corroboration exists.
Umm, the witnesses SHE NAMED failed to corroborate any part of her accusations. What makes you think any other corroboration exists?
Those are the witnesses she believed to be at the party. A thorough investigation would have pinned down the date of the party. A thorough investigation would have talked to her friends -- maybe one of them helped her home, or saw her on her way home. A thorough investigation would have sought to determine whether this group of people was in the habit of using "Killer Qs" to spike drinks. A thorough investigation would have walked her through her memory of the event, repeatedly, in as much detail as possible, in an effort to unearth details that could be used to corroborate or discredit the account. Did she hear about the party from a friend? What, if anything, does that friend remember? A thorough investigation would have followed up with the potential witness who said people knew contemporaneously that something had happened. As far as I know, the FBI made no effort to speak to her. A thorough investigation would have walked Kavanaugh through his memory of the appropriate party, in as much detail as possible, to determine whether he was out of public view for an extended length of time, to determine whether he got drunk at that party, to confirm whether Dr. Blasey Ford was at the party.

There's a lot the FBI could have done, and that (using subpoena power) the House Judiciary Committee will be able to do, to get at the truth. Senate Republicans and the White House decided instead to rely on raw power politics. They may have the votes, at least for now. But when you rely on pure power politics to accomplish your goals, with no hint of principle behind them, you don't get to complain when the tables turn and the other side uses every tool available to them to bulldoze you. That includes impeachment power. It includes increasing the size of the Court. It includes controlling the Court's jurisdiction. And I'm sure it includes a bunch of other tactics I haven't yet thought of. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6333
Location: Montana
Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
There was specific evidence against Franken, Spitzer and especially Weiner. I don't know about Schneiderman, never heard of him.

No specific evidence against Kavanaugh, only an accusation. Show me the blue dress, bob-tel.
Eyewitness testimony from the victim is specific evidence. And we need a real FBI investigation, not this apparent sham, to know with any confidence whether corroboration exists.
Umm, the witnesses SHE NAMED failed to corroborate any part of her accusations. What makes you think any other corroboration exists?


It exists in Bob's head, and dammit, that should be enough.

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 21971
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
I hope Kavanaugh gets confirmed. That will ensure a Democrat takeover of both the House and Senate. He'll get impeached along with trump.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.