• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kavanaugh vs Blasey - this is real bizarre wtf piece of news

Redress said:
But this is stupid. Really, really totally ****ing stupid. Investigating her will get no one any closer to the truth about her allegations. Her motives in coming forward, whether she is a good or bad person, those have zero bearing on the simple question that does need to be asked: is what she said true or not, or mist likely, unprovable either way. Digging into the accusers past is what tends to dissuade victims from coming forward mo0re often, especially in high profile cases.

Let's imagine a perfect world, the way the system should work. Some one comes forward, and makes a claim about a nominee. The best way, the right way is the let the authorities investigate, and react based on that investigation. Digging for dirt on the accuser is low class, lame and gets no one any closer to the truth.
Click to expand...

Of course her background and motives matter, just as does his.

Investigate what? She conveniently does not remember when it happened, where it happened, nor how she got there or left, nor did she remember his name until this year,- and now claims her own therapist is a liar. Everyone but her is a liar according to her, while admitting she was drunk and remembers absolutely nothing other than what she claimed happened, nor remembered it was Kavanaugh until he became the nominee.

So investigate what? How? Get a search warrant for every house in the city taking her along asking "was it here?" - and then assuming that in 3, 5, 8 years they come across the house she said it happened in looking for 37 year old DNA?

Seriously, investigate what? She remembers nothing other than "what happened" and, 37 years later, finally remembered it was Kavanaugh.
 
bubbabgone said:
It has to do with the extreme "flexibility" (to be generous) of the position of the adversaries.
When it demonstrates such obvious hypocrisy it signals there's something more going on.
Click to expand...

Get real. Lawyers do this all the time. I might be a feminist lawyer denouncing sexual harassment one day, yet defend an accused harasser the next. The alleged harasser could be innocent, or "overcharged," or a friend.

I am sure there is a lot going on. As a lefty, I see this guy as harsh on workers rights and safety, probably terrible on things like clean air or water, and retrograde on women's rights. The fact that the confirmation is slowed by this allegation is fine with me.
 
Nickyjo said:
Get real. Lawyers do this all the time. I might be a feminist lawyer denouncing sexual harassment one day, yet defend an accused harasser the next. The alleged harasser could be innocent, or "overcharged," or a friend.

I am sure there is a lot going on. As a lefty, I see this guy as harsh on workers rights and safety, probably terrible on things like clean air or water, and retrograde on women's rights. The fact that the confirmation is slowed by this allegation is fine with me.
Click to expand...

That was my point.
 
Nickyjo said:
Get real. Lawyers do this all the time. I might be a feminist lawyer denouncing sexual harassment one day, yet defend an accused harasser the next. The alleged harasser could be innocent, or "overcharged," or a friend.

I am sure there is a lot going on. As a lefty, I see this guy as harsh on workers rights and safety, probably terrible on things like clean air or water, and retrograde on women's rights. The fact that the confirmation is slowed by this allegation is fine with me.
Click to expand...

At least you admit it. This is ALL about trying to stop Kavanaugh until after the midterms, nothing else. It is just a disgusting media stunt for how this has been done.
 
Visbek said:
Let's be a bit more precise, shall we?

She was considering going public months ago. She took a polygraph because her lawyer recommended it. The attorney knew that if Ford went public, she would be attacked in all sorts of ways (such as accusing her of wanting revenge because of an old foreclosure case...) and wanted to bolster her credibility.

She sent a letter to her Representative, and then to Feinstein. In the letter to Feinstein, she explicitly wrote: "As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak." She even signed it "in confidence."

She was talking to the Washington Post. She also told them not to run the story, because she thought his confirmation was a lock, and decided she didn't want her life wrecked in a vain attempt to get her story out.

Feinstein forwarded the letter to the FBI, but otherwise sat on it. The Post didn't run the story. It was the Intercept (a small investigative journalism site) that broke the story, and Ford only came forward a few days after the story broke; it was inevitable at that point anyway.

I.e. Ford changed her mind. She wasn't going to go public. Someone else wound up making that choice for her. That doesn't sound like someone hell-bent on revenge, it sounds like someone who wants to tell a story but was concerned about the consequences. Based on what we've already seen, it's obvious that her concerns were warranted.
Click to expand...

What she said is she wanted to meet with Feinstein first. Obviously she knew this would go public. She wanted assurance the Democratic Party would back her up and protect her as a Democrat Never-Trump, #MeToo hero.
 
joko104 said:
At least you admit it. This is ALL about trying to stop Kavanaugh until after the midterms, nothing else. It is just a disgusting media stunt for how this has been done.
Click to expand...

Of course, one of a string of disgusting media stunts we have witnessed. Remember the good old innocent days when we argued about the size of inaugural crowds?
 
Nickyjo said:
I know, but it doesn't make the lawyer hypocritical in any way, just doing the job.
Click to expand...

I see it as being a bit different than their usual attorney whoring given the dependence on me-too as a substitute for evidence ... the accusation is enough.
 
bubbabgone said:
I see it as being a bit different than their usual attorney whoring given the dependence on me-too as a substitute for evidence ... the accusation is enough.
Click to expand...

Look, given what women have had to go through when they bring this issue up, it’s ridiculous to say that “the accusation is enough.”
 
Nickyjo said:
Look, given what women have had to go through when they bring this issue up, it’s ridiculous to say that “the accusation is enough.”
Click to expand...

Sure it's ridiculous ... but that's what they're saying and they want you to say it too.
 
joko104 said:
What she said is she wanted to meet with Feinstein first. Obviously she knew this would go public. She wanted assurance the Democratic Party would back her up and protect her as a Democrat Never-Trump, #MeToo hero.
Click to expand...

I don't pretend to understand what's going on. But if you really want to remain anonymous, you don't write your Rep. and then have your letter forwarded to a powerful Senator on the Judiciary Committee and expect anonymity. And Ford clearly didn't--she had the foresight to scrub her social media, to obtain notes from her therapist, and take a lie detector test. And she knew exactly which legal firm to hire, Katz's.

And now, after expressing eagerness to tell her story, her lawyers have reneged and say she won't talk to the Committee until the FBI launches an investigation. From Andrew McCarthy:

...the vote was delayed to provide Ford an opportunity to testify. This was wholly unnecessary under the circumstances, but the committee went the extra mile in order to exhibit sensitivity to Ford’s alleged trauma. Rather than accept, however, Ford’s partisan Democratic lawyers countered that there must be an investigation first — never mind that the committee hearing is an investigation of the only thing that matters: how the Senate should exercise its constitutional advice-and-consent duty.https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-must-testify/

I tell you what's really tearing it for me: The letter delivered last night that claims that Grassley was going to force Ford to sit at the same table as Kavanaugh. Talk about really overplaying your hand. This is game-playing here.
 
TobyOne said:
If could be that Feinstein withheld the information for two months because Blasey is a raging psycho.
Click to expand...

I think it's a lot more likely that DF delayed the revelation so as to better poison the country's mind against the GOP before the crucial midterms.
 
I should add that now we're being told that some secondary agency exposed Ford's letter to the public. Still, either that agency acted for the same reasons I imputed to Feinstein, or Feinstein and/or her allies decided to stage-manage the exposure through a third party.
 
bubbabgone said:
Not sure if non-msm forum is the place to put this but here goes ...

It appears Kavanaugh's mother, who was also a judge, presided & ruled in a foreclosure case involving Blasey's parents in the 90's.
How weird is this? Does it mean anything? Is it relevant?

<SNIP>
Click to expand...



The notion that someone would completely upend their life like that to take revenge because of a ruling in her parents' foreclosure case is absurd, especially since one would expect that revenge to happen sooner when the guy might have a chance of being sent to jail.

Still, I suppose shouldn't be surprised anymore. What site came up with this one?



Of course, there now appear to be three more accusers, so new defensive conspiracy theories will have to be generated. I suspect the defense will get lazy, revert to "but it's obviously an Evil Liberal Plot" when really those making the defense really just mean "**** it. I don't care what any of them do, so long as I can say we're sticking it to Liberals".
 
Mr Person said:
The notion that someone would completely upend their life like that to take revenge because of a ruling in her parents' foreclosure case is absurd, especially since one would expect that revenge to happen sooner when the guy might have a chance of being sent to jail.

Still, I suppose shouldn't be surprised anymore. What site came up with this one?



Of course, there now appear to be three more accusers, so new defensive conspiracy theories will have to be generated. I suspect the defense will get lazy, revert to "but it's obviously an Evil Liberal Plot" when really those making the defense really just mean "**** it. I don't care what any of them do, so long as I can say we're sticking it to Liberals".
Click to expand...

Week old news. The source was in the part of the OP snipped. It was the State of Maryland.

Two accusers (without corroboration) unless you're counting the creepy porn lawyer as the 3rd. Hope you're not counting Avenatti.
 
bubbabgone said:
Week old news. The source was in the part of the OP snipped. It was the State of Maryland.

Two accusers (without corroboration) unless you're counting the creepy porn lawyer as the 3rd. Hope you're not counting Avenatti.
Click to expand...

You use a slimeball attack ripped from Tucker Carlson and you want to be taken seriously?

:lamo
 
Mr Person said:
You use a slimeball attack ripped from Tucker Carlson and you want to be taken seriously?

:lamo
Click to expand...

I thought I ripped it from Trump.
Oh well, Avenatti is still the creepy porn lawyer no matter who said it first.
You mean you were counting Avenatti?
 
bubbabgone said:
I thought I ripped it from Trump.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe Tucker Carlson said it because Trump said it. If so, I missed Trump saying it first. But Tucker definitely said it, and then trolled Avenetti about it when they spoke. If that's a mistake I made, it doesn't change the substantive point.


bubbabgone said:
Oh well, Avenatti is still the creepy porn lawyer no matter who said it first.
You mean you were counting Avenatti?
Click to expand...

How is he "creepy"? Daniels was a porn star so ewwwwww? Daniels wrote a book about Trump's mushroom tip so ewwwww, her lawyer! Because he's advocating as forcefully in his clients' interests as best he seems to think most effective in light of what they appear to want?




He has a political agenda, he has a client who approached him was on board with it, and most importantly the allegations he made proved true to the point whether Donald Dennison et. al. were tripping over each other trying to keep the dishonest denials straight.

Being an attention whore who has been wrong is bad. Being an attention whore who has been right may be obnoxious, but it's not a negative for credibility.




"Creepy porn lawyer" is a crap attack whether ripped from Carlson or Trump.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...ews-creepy-porn-tag-for-avenatti-interview-as
 
Mr Person said:
Well, maybe Tucker Carlson said it because Trump said it. If so, I missed Trump saying it first. But Tucker definitely said it, and then trolled Avenetti about it when they spoke. If that's a mistake I made, it doesn't change the substantive point.
Click to expand...
I don't care who said it first. I agree with it.
It's an observation about a guy after seeing him many many times in many many venues and hearing him say many many provocative things. He's a porn lawyer who is creepy and wildly self-promoting while using Stormy Daniels to get headlines ... for himself. Did you see that it looks like her[his] slander lawsuit against Trump is likely going to be dismissed? And he might run for President in 2020 as a [of course]Democratic?
No, it doesn't change your substantive point ... but I'm not sure I saw a substantive point.



How is he "creepy"? Daniels was a porn star so ewwwwww? Daniels wrote a book about Trump's mushroom tip so ewwwww, her lawyer! Because he's advocating as forcefully in his clients' interests as best he seems to think most effective in light of what they appear to want?

He has a political agenda, he has a client who approached him was on board with it, and most importantly the allegations he made proved true to the point whether Donald Dennison et. al. were tripping over each other trying to keep the dishonest denials straight.

Being an attention whore who has been wrong is bad. Being an attention whore who has been right may be obnoxious, but it's not a negative for credibility.

"Creepy porn lawyer" is a crap attack whether ripped from Carlson or Trump.
Click to expand...

You sound awfully personally offended by the creepy porn lawyer description for some reason. How about if we settle on sleazy porn lawyer instead. Better?
 
bubbabgone said:
who the hell knows.
but it at least should be a signal to the media that there may be some subterranean stories to investigate. at a minimum she has hooked up with a rather radical attorney and may be radical herself.
Click to expand...

California professor? Hello! :lol:
 
chuckiechan said:
If congress has any balls, which they don't, they would put them both under oath and question them. Also, she and her lawyer need to be asked if she is being paid in anyway - Go Fund Me, etc. And while it's still in fashion, he lawyer's office should be impounded and sifted for evidence of payoff's.

Lastly, we need to decide if going back to high school is such a good idea considering a new generation coming up will be a Google's mercy when it comes to dox'ing as far back as the potential candidates first text, Facebook, or e mail, not to mention social media and comments in forums like D.P.
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's use Mueller's raiding party. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom