• 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!

Ed Whelan: The Center of the Kavanaugh Universe

late said:
If he lied to the FBI...
Click to expand...

Right, so based on NO probable cause, let's launch a criminal investigation to find a crime. Hitler and Stalin would be so ****ing proud!
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
It has not been proven that Ford is lying. It has been proven that Whelan was.
Click to expand...

More importantly, she hasn't proven that she isn't. The burden of proof is on her.
 
apdst said:
More importantly, she hasn't proven that she isn't. The burden of proof is on her.
Click to expand...

Why did Ed Whelan apologize but the WH and Kavanaugh is still running with the lie that he wasn't there???
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
Why did Ed Whelan apologize but the WH and Kavanaugh is still running with the lie that he wasn't there???
Click to expand...

You don't know it's a lie. If you can prove it's a lie, git after it. Can you?
 
apdst said:
You don't know it's a lie. If you can prove it's a lie, git after it. Can you?
Click to expand...

He apologized and said as much in his apology.

I made an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh's Georgetown Prep classmate. I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake.
Click to expand...

He apologized and yet still retweets those that support the claims he made. He's lying and he lied about apologizing. Double Whammy.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
We'll see on thursday if he goes with that route but the WH and Orin Hatch have both made similar claims as to the Ed Whelan story. Not exactly so in depth but they've taken the proper elements from it. "She's forgotten." "Mistaken Identity." and He "wasn't there." I don't believe before last thursday these were optional talking points to take.
Click to expand...

Those cads are actually advancing about a research psychologist a storyline that her mind was so addled that she, essentially, hallucinated who her attackers were. Do they truly think she hadn't already considered the way the mind, including hers, works and whether her memory of the event was errant? Do they really think her therapist hadn't considered that possibility? More plausible is it that Ford's therapist planted the memory[SUP]1[/SUP] than is it that Ford endogenously and existentially conjured Brett as the person who assaulted her.

While the confirmation of BK is political, Dr. Ford's claim is not and it shouldn't be considered through the partisan prism of politics. Hers is a claim about an existential event; thus it can be dispassionately investigated, have the available information about it assembled and evaluated rationally and, in turn, from it can be formed one or more logically sound/cogent conclusions. That anyone objects to such a rigorous analytical methodology being applied to the matter astounds me.


Note:
  1. If Ford consented thus and they were thus documented, that'd be something that could be investigated to abet everyone's getting "to the bottom" of the matter.
 
Xelor said:
Those cads are actually advancing about a research psychologist a storyline that her mind was so addled that she, essentially, hallucinated who her attackers were. Do they truly think she hadn't already considered the way the mind, including hers, works and whether her memory of the event was errant? Do they really think her therapist hadn't considered that possibility? More plausible is it that Ford's therapist planted the memory[SUP]1[/SUP] than is it that Ford endogenously and existentially conjured Brett as the person who assaulted her.

While the confirmation of BK is political, Dr. Ford's claim is not and it shouldn't be considered through the partisan prism of politics. Hers is a claim about an existential event; thus it can be dispassionately investigated, have the available information about it assembled and evaluated rationally and, in turn, from it can be formed one or more logically sound/cogent conclusions. That anyone objects to such a rigorous analytical methodology being applied to the matter astounds me.


Note:
  1. If Ford consented thus and they were thus documented, that'd be something that could be investigated to abet everyone's getting "to the bottom" of the matter.
Click to expand...

I wrote this on another thread:

In my opinion. She hasn't slipped up. The GOP war machine has effectively silenced her witnesses or blackmailed them but the main parts of her story has not changed and the little she has spoken she has said that the GOP was lying about certain events/witnesses. Plus, if she has any amount of evidence the GOP's line about Kav not being there will blow up in smoke. Now, she could be making it all up but I have lost all faith in the GOP and I for one do not consider them the purveyors of truth telling.

Kav- Says he wasn't there
Judge- Says he blacked out
Friend- GOP claims this is the other friend/witness
Ford- says she hasn't mixed people up/hasn't spoken to good friends about the event.

Who sounds more definitive? The I wasn't there crap is an excuse directly out of all cases of frat boy misconduct and Ed Whelan is currently retweeting people spouting these theories as well.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I wrote this on another thread:

In my opinion. She hasn't slipped up. The GOP war machine has effectively silenced her witnesses or blackmailed them but the main parts of her story has not changed and the little she has spoken she has said that the GOP was lying about certain events/witnesses. Plus, if she has any amount of evidence the GOP's line about Kav not being there will blow up in smoke. Now, she could be making it all up but I have lost all faith in the GOP and I for one do not consider them the purveyors of truth telling.

Kav- Says he wasn't there
Judge- Says he blacked out
Friend- GOP claims this is the other friend/witness
Ford- says she hasn't mixed people up/hasn't spoken to good friends about the event.

Who sounds more definitive? The I wasn't there crap is an excuse directly out of all cases of frat boy misconduct and Ed Whelan is currently retweeting people spouting these theories as well.
Click to expand...

Off-Topic and Red:
Sorry, but even as I agree with you about much pertaining to this BK-CBF matter, I'm not about to get on a "blackmail train" with you or anyone else. It doesn't even matter whether I think that may have happened, unless I have something notably more cogently arguable (and defensible) than abducted notions about something of that nature, I'm just not going to go there.

I'm willing to stick my neck out on the matter to some degree because of (1) my lifelong status as member in what folks likely call D.C.'s social so-called elite and (2) I can draw upon my own, my cousins', my siblings', class-/schoolmates', my friends', clubmates', my parents, and many others' experiences with situations, attitudes, mores and people such as Brett, Chrissy and other privileged prep schoolers. Blackmail, however, is not part of that experience set, so, no, I'm not sticking my neck out or bringing my resources or energies to bear for that line, at least not at this juncture.


Blue:
I don't know that "definitive" is a word I'd use to describe either of their stories. That said, yes, her story sounds coherent and credible to me, at least more so than does his rebuttal.
 
apdst said:
Why is Ford sticking to her story even after four of her eyewitnesses say they didn't see anything?
Click to expand...
I didn't see 911 happen but it did.
 
Xelor said:
Off-Topic and Red:
Sorry, but even as I agree with you about much pertaining to this BK-CBF matter, I'm not about to get on a "blackmail train" with you or anyone else. It doesn't even matter whether I think that may have happened, unless I have something notably more cogently arguable (and defensible) than abducted notions about something of that nature, I'm just not going to go there.

I'm willing to stick my neck out on the matter to some degree because of (1) my lifelong status as member in what folks likely call D.C.'s social so-called elite and (2) I can draw upon my own, my cousins', my siblings', class-/schoolmates', my friends', clubmates', my parents, and many others' experiences with situations, attitudes, mores and people such as Brett, Chrissy and other privileged prep schoolers. Blackmail, however, is not part of that experience set, so, no, I'm not sticking my neck out or bringing my resources or energies to bear for that line, at least not at this juncture.


Blue:
I don't know that "definitive" is a word I'd use to describe either of their stories. That said, yes, her story sounds coherent and credible to me, at least more so than does his rebuttal.
Click to expand...

The blackmail thing does seem to be portrayed quite a bit in Hollywood that's why it came to me.
 

Attachments

  • 9-11-attack-on-world-trade-towers.jpg
    9-11-attack-on-world-trade-towers.jpg
    97.1 KB · Views: 19
late said:
That's quite the fantasy world you have there.
Click to expand...

Probable cause is a fantasy?

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
The blackmail thing does seem to be portrayed quite a bit in Hollywood that's why it came to me.
Click to expand...

Okay...

I eschew taking situational analysis inspiration and guidance from Hollywood dramas. LOL But to each his own, I suppose. LOL
 
Xelor said:
Red:
The conspiratorial nature is disturbing if the line they're advancing is but a canard.

They can collaborate on a narrative all they want so long as they don't put forth one that bears in -- substance, context and fact -- little and/or no relationship to the truth.


Blue:
It is strange that Brett might with others coordinate a storyline about the matter for Brett asserted he wasn't at the party. If he wasn't there, there is literally nothing relevant for him to say about who attacked Dr. Ford. Obviously, if he wasn't there and she was assaulted, even the dumbest person around can infer someone else did it. The thing is that his absence claim is dubious for at least two reasons:

  • [*]Implausibility of her mistaking someone else for him -- It turns out that there were but five people at the party -- "Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room." The notion that Dr. Ford mistook Brett Kavanaugh for his non-existent twin, or anyone else, is preposterous. One doesn't have or go to a party that has but five people and not know who's who among the five people there.
  • Brett's track record of paltering:
  • Dr. Ford has nothing to gain, and much to lose, from fabricating a story about having been sexually assaulted by Brett. Brett has everything to gain from successfully misrepresenting the truth and/or "muddying the waters" on this matter.



Other:
  • Frankly, the fiasco of whether and when Dr. Ford and others would testify is ridiculous. The Senators should have simply subpoenaed her, Brett, and anyone else who may have information about the matter.
  • I've heard some folks introduce the matter of "this and that" elected office holder of whom similar charges have been made. The thing about those individuals is that statute or limitations or not, investigation or not, because they are directly elected officials, voters will get to sit in judgment of them. That simply isn't the case for Brett:
    • Voters had no direct say in choosing him over the myriad other conservatives whom Trump might have nominated.
    • Voters have no direct say in whether the Judiciary Committee approves Brett.
    • Voters have no direct say in whether the full Senate consents to Brett's ascension to the Court.
    • Voters, regardless of what we now or later learn about Brett, have no direct ability to remove him from the Court.
In contrast, voters can their approbation accord to or withhold from (would-be) elected office holders with whom they have no or lose favor. And indeed, were Brett to face voters, he'd not be seated on the SCOTUS.

So while it may be that voters do periodically (knowingly or not) elect reprobates, when voters have decided "enough is enough," at the most, they need only suffer elected reprobates for six years, not one or more generations. Accordingly, the bar for (1) the character of a SCOTUS justice, (2) the completeness, accuracy and transparency of their past comportment and dealings, and (3) and the nature of their cognition on jurisprudential theory and practice must be markedly higher than that for any elected office holder.

The WH/Congress should direct the FBI to obtain whatever information there is to be had and present it in a fully and publicly disclosed report. The Senate should subpoena witnesses -- Brett, Ford, Mark J., Ford's classmates, Brett's classmates, the psychologist, etc. -- and have them testify. The reason for doing that is to provide the best possible opportunity to get the details of the matter in the open and thereby facilitate Brett establishing that he is as innocent as he claims. If such comprehensive hearings reveal he is thus culpable of nothing unlawful, great. The blemishing cloud will have been removed from over his head and he can be confirmed to Court and nobody will have any basis for raising the matter or questioning his integrity, independence, etc.​
Click to expand...

The link was behind a paywall so could not verify, has the story changed? Was it 4 boys at the party or 3 boys and a girl, not counting the accuser? When did the account change and which is the most recent account? Also, by your own logic of everyone knowing the individuals at a party of merely 5 people, wouldn't the information provided from Keyser that she doesn't know Kavanaugh discredit the idea that this party even took place?
 
Nap said:
The link was behind a paywall so could not verify, has the story changed? Was it 4 boys at the party or 3 boys and a girl, not counting the accuser? When did the account change and which is the most recent account? Also, by your own logic of everyone knowing the individuals at a party of merely 5 people, wouldn't the information provided from Keyser that she doesn't know Kavanaugh discredit the idea that this party even took place?
Click to expand...

Red:
Install this -- https://github.com/maximelebreton/quick-javascript-switcher -- in Chrome (perhaps it works with other browsers?) to overcome the paywall problem.

The WaPo article says four boys were at the party. It indicates neither the approximate or actual total quantity of people at the party nor how many of either sex were there. The article also doesn't indicate whether people were arriving and departing intermittently as would be the case for the "me and 200 of my closest friends" kind of party that prep school kids back then routinely attended/hosted. (Prep school kids may even now throw that kind of party. I wouldn't know, for my kids are all well past that age.)

Initially, I had no idea how many people were at the gathering. Later, I heard (from a "so-so" source on television) there were five people at the party. Now it appears there may have been at least six people there. Taking that source's word for there being five people at the party is my blunder, and I see that now for nothing I've since read indicates there were five people there.

At this point, I really cannot say how many people were at the event. My original supposition was that the party in question was a large party of the sort I occasionally hosted as a teen.[SUP]1[/SUP] That to my mind, frankly, better explains Chrissy's departure without being noticed and without interacting with others as she left. It also better explains people whom she knows/knew being there and their not knowing Brett.


Note:
  1. Indeed, the only things I and my friends called parties were large parties whereat there were people everywhere. Anything with about 12 or fewer or us was just "nothing," "hanging out," etc., whatever was "the usual" stuff we did for entertainment. Moreover, it wasn't until junior year's spring and summer, when we all got cars, that "major" partying began to happen on nearly a weekly basis. During freshman and sophomore years, our time was still pretty structured -- away at school all year, most of summer at camp, and at the shore or away on vacation with family -- but once we turned 16, we didn't go to camp anymore, so that freed up the summer for lots of partying.


Blue:
To my knowledge, no reliable news outlet has yet reported a party-size tally/approximation.


Pink:
Keyser's claim that she doesn't know Brett makes implausible the notion that she can attest to whether Brett was or was not at the party and it makes it impossible for her to attest to his character.

Ms. Keyser's statement, delivered via her attorney, says the following: "Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford."
  • Not knowing Brett, she cannot attest to his being or not being at any party. That doesn't mean she or he didn't attend the same party, but it does mean they probably didn't together attend a five-person party.
  • Her remarks do not indicate that she was or wasn't at the party in question.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
Install this -- https://github.com/maximelebreton/quick-javascript-switcher -- in Chrome (perhaps it works with other browsers?) to overcome the paywall problem.

The WaPo article says four boys were at the party. It indicates neither the approximate or actual total quantity of people at the party nor how many of either sex were there. The article also doesn't indicate whether people were arriving and departing intermittently as would be the case for the "me and 200 of my closest friends" kind of party that prep school kids back then routinely attended/hosted. (Prep school kids may even now throw that kind of party. I wouldn't know, for my kids are all well past that age.)

Initially, I had no idea how many people were at the gathering. Later, I heard (from a "so-so" source on television) there were five people at the party. Now it appears there may have been at least six people there. Taking that source's word for there being five people at the party is my blunder, and I see that now for nothing I've since read indicates there were five people there.

At this point, I really cannot say how many people were at the event. My original supposition was that the party in question was a large party of the sort I occasionally hosted as a teen.[SUP]1[/SUP] That to my mind, frankly, better explains Chrissy's departure without being noticed and without interacting with others as she left. It also better explains people whom she knows/knew being there and their not knowing Brett.


Note:
  1. Indeed, the only things I and my friends called parties were large parties whereat there were people everywhere. Anything with about 12 or fewer or us was just "nothing," "hanging out," etc., whatever was "the usual" stuff we did for entertainment. Moreover, it wasn't until junior year's spring and summer, when we all got cars, that "major" partying began to happen on nearly a weekly basis. During freshman and sophomore years, our time was still pretty structured -- away at school all year, most of summer at camp, and at the shore or away on vacation with family -- but once we turned 16, we didn't go to camp anymore, so that freed up the summer for lots of partying.


Blue:
To my knowledge, no reliable news outlet has yet reported a party-size tally/approximation.


Pink:
Keyser's claim that she doesn't know Brett makes implausible the notion that she can attest to whether Brett was or was not at the party and it makes it impossible for her to attest to his character.

Ms. Keyser's statement, delivered via her attorney, says the following: "Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford."
  • Not knowing Brett, she cannot attest to his being or not being at any party. That doesn't mean she or he didn't attend the same party, but it does mean they probably didn't together attend a five-person party.
  • Her remarks do not indicate that she was or wasn't at the party in question.
Click to expand...

So now that we don't know the number of people at the party, do you feel it is less preposterous that it could be a case of mistaken identity? It would seem from your post that you believed it to be so due to how few people were at the party.
 
Nap said:
So now that we don't know the number of people at the party, do you feel it is less preposterous that it could be a case of mistaken identity? It would seem from your post that you believed it to be so due to how few people were at the party.
Click to expand...
No....I'd never misidentify someone with whom I had or attempted to have sex with. Have you?

There are women who wanted to "get with me" who didn't appeal to me; thus we didn't "go there." I'm sure I don't recall their names, but then neither did any of them sexually assault me in an effort to have sex with me. I most definitely remember the names of people with whom I engaged in an angered physical fight of sorts or in full-on fisticuffs.
 
Last edited:
Xelor said:
No....I'd never misidentify someone with whom I had or attempted to have sex with. Have you?

There are women who wanted to "get with me" who didn't appeal to me; thus we didn't "go there." I'm sure I don't recall their names, but then neither did any of them sexually assault me in an effort to have sex with me. I most definitely remember the names of people with whom I engaged in an angered physical fight of sorts or in full-on fisticuffs.
Click to expand...

No, but I am not the type of person that tends to have casual sex. I don't really see the point in it unless there is some connection to the person. I do have friends that likely couldn't identify several women they have slept with. As far as fights go, I could probably name a couple but definitely not all of them as none of the fights was ever that serious of a threat to me(outside of sanctioned events/tournaments, I was only in a few actual physical altercations)
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I'm talking about Ed Whelan's timeline not the events of the party. That's not the topic of this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ah-ha! Was Whelan at the party? Was he an eye witness? Does he present any forensic evidence?

EVERYONE that the lady claimed was there swears they were not.

She knows no facts and cannot remember anything that is actually able to be followed up and is supported by any other human being on the planet.

Frankly, the way she recounts this story is the same way that I remember dreams when I wake. It's possible that she remembers something that really happened and possible that she remembers something that did not happen.

The 5 people that she cites to corroborate her version of events have all sworn under oath that what she says happened did not happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom