Monoxide

The Trump Presidency (take 2)

136,111 posts in this topic

11 minutes ago, Jpowers said:

I feel like "... unremarkable that Ms. Keyser does not remember attending a specific gathering 30 years ago at which nothing of consequence happened to her.” is actually a pretty reasonable stance. 

These are her corroborating witnesses. The people she says were there. You seriously think it’s no big deal that none of them can corroborate even the fact that such a gathering ever occurred?

Two of them have zero reason to lie about it. Both of them say they have no idea what she’s talking about. Keyser says she doesn’t know Brett Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever having been at a gathering with him.

You seriously think there’s nothing to that? I mean, it doesn’t mean Ford is lying. But there is surely no basis for saying she’s telling the truth either. She named names. Every one of them says “we don’t know what she’s talking about.” There isn’t a set of circumstances where that isn’t a problem for her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

These are her corroborating witnesses. The people she says were there. You seriously think it’s no big deal that none of them can corroborate even the fact that such a gathering ever occurred?

Two of them have zero reason to lie about it. Both of them say they have no idea what she’s talking about. Keyser says she doesn’t know Brett Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever having been at a gathering with him.

You seriously think there’s nothing to that? I mean, it doesn’t mean Ford is lying. But there is surely no basis for saying she’s telling the truth either. She named names. Every one of them says “we don’t know what she’s talking about.” There isn’t a set of circumstances where that isn’t a problem for her. 

I'm going back in my memory banks trying to recall folks at a party I went to. Outside of my closest friends I'm striking out. There was that dude, that blonde girl, and that dude that nobody liked. I guess with a few reminders here and there I could recall names but it's a difficult proposition. 

 

How many folks were supposed to be at that party? Wasn't it just five just a few days ago? 

 

 

Also my mind goes to a scenario if this was fake...... Why do you name names who are obviously going to say... Yeah that never happened? Reasonable minds want to know. The other scenarios you could come up with seem much easier. Especially coming from a psychology professor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

So a fifth person alleged by Dr. Ford to be at the party she claims occurred has said she doesn’t know what the **** Ford is talking about.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/22/us/politics/kavanaugh-senate-blasey-ford-testify.html

”But in a possible setback for the woman, Christine Blasey Ford, Republicans on the committee received a statement on Saturday that seemed to eliminate any chance of corroboration of Dr. Blasey’s account by anyone who attended the high school party where she says she was assaulted.

A woman named Leland Keyser — who is believed to have been identified by Dr. Blasey as one of the five people at the party — told the committee through a lawyer that she “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.” Two men said to have been at the party have also told the committee that they have no recollection of the events.”

To which, at some point, reasonable people begin to say:

giphy.gif

So I went back and reread it. Yeah this article is misleading as all ****. 

 

 

"Two men said to have been at the party have also told the committee that they have no recollection of the events" 

 

The two men are Kavanaugh and Judge. Dude come on. 

 

So what this boils down to is the two people who weren't either the alleged victim, the alleged perpetrator of the crime, or the witness to said crime.....

 

Sounds like a bunch of ******** to me. It's literally two women not remembering being at a party 36 years ago. The other three have too much skin in the game. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jpowers said:

I'm going back in my memory banks trying to recall folks at a party I went to. Outside of my closest friends I'm striking out. There was that dude, that blonde girl, and that dude that nobody liked. I guess with a few reminders here and there I could recall names but it's a difficult proposition. 

 

How many folks were supposed to be at that party? Wasn't it just five just a few days ago? 

 

 

Also my mind goes to a scenario if this was fake...... Why do you name names who are obviously going to say... Yeah that never happened? Reasonable minds want to know. The other scenarios you could come up with seem much easier. Especially coming from a psychology professor. 

Why does anybody ever do that? Maybe she thought somebody would say “dunno — maybe, I think I might remember something like that.”

It’s still a problem though. She’s doing everything she can to punt her testimony past Thursday. They sat on this on the premise she didn’t want to be named publicly while at the same time she was hiring lawyers and taking polygraphs. She wants Kavanaugh to go first and she doesn’t want him to be able to testify after her. 

And none of her witnesses can say anything remotely like this ever happened. 

So yeah, color me skeptical. But maybe one reason she’d name names is this is more about delaying confirmation than justice. Certainly it could also be she’s telling the truth and really unlucky and really can’t testify Monday or Wednesday because she doesn’t want to fly (yes, she said that). The problem, as ever, is how could anyone know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JDaveG said:

Why does anybody ever do that? Maybe she thought somebody would say “dunno — maybe, I think I might remember something like that.”

It’s still a problem though. She’s doing everything she can to punt her testimony past Thursday. They sat on this on the premise she didn’t want to be named publicly while at the same time she was hiring lawyers and taking polygraphs. She wants Kavanaugh to go first and she doesn’t want him to be able to testify after her. 

And none of her witnesses can say anything remotely like this ever happened. 

So yeah, color me skeptical. But maybe one reason she’d name names is this is more about delaying confirmation than justice. Certainly it could also be she’s telling the truth and really unlucky and really can’t testify Monday or Wednesday because she doesn’t want to fly (yes, she said that). The problem, as ever, is how could anyone know?

 

1 minute ago, Jpowers said:

So I went back and reread it. Yeah this article is misleading as all ****. 

 

 

"Two men said to have been at the party have also told the committee that they have no recollection of the events" 

 

The two men are Kavanaugh and Judge. Dude come on. 

 

So what this boils down to is the two people who weren't either the alleged victim, the alleged perpetrator of the crime, or the witness to said crime.....

 

Sounds like a bunch of ******** to me. It's literally two women not remembering being at a party 36 years ago. The other three have too much skin in the game. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jpowers said:

So I went back and reread it. Yeah this article is misleading as all ****. 

 

 

"Two men said to have been at the party have also told the committee that they have no recollection of the events" 

 

The two men are Kavanaugh and Judge. Dude come on. 

 

So what this boils down to is the two people who weren't either the alleged victim, the alleged perpetrator of the crime, or the witness to said crime.....

 

Sounds like a bunch of ******** to me. It's literally two women don't remembering being at a party 36 years ago. The other three have too much skin in the game. 

 

There’s also Smyth, who is neither victim nor perp nor witness. He doesn’t remember either. 

Now there is Keyser. So you have 3 people with reason to lie (Ford, Kavanaugh and Judge) and 2 who don’t. 

Unfortnuately, neither of the 2 who have no reason to lie agrees with Ford. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
Quote

Here’s how Democrats can destroy Brett Kavanaugh even if he makes it onto the Supreme Court

 
22 SEP 2018 AT 18:32 ET                   
 
Very few commentators are willing to predict the outcome of this week’s Supreme Court nomination hearings for Brett Kavanaugh.
 

The woman who came forward with a storm of a violent sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh will testify this week, and the judge will also have his say.

 

But, regardless of the vote, the Kavanaugh saga is just beginning, writes a Bloomberg columnist.

 

After explaining why today’s landscape is so different than when Justice Clarence Thomas survived accusations of sexual harassment and went on to join the court as a silent and reliably conservative vote.

 

“The Clarence Thomas battle ended when Thomas took his seat on the court. The Kavanaugh war could escalate if he reaches the same height,” writes Bloomberg’s Francis Wilkinson.

 

Part of the reason is Trump himself—and the way he’s changed the dialogue. No longer is it verboten to attack the judiciary or even American intelligence.

 

“Trump’s multifaceted attacks on rule of law and his sprawling corruption, ignored, excused or fully embraced by the Republican Congress, have clarified the stakes for Democrats,” Bloomberg says. “It’s no longer just about who gets to run things until the other guys take over… It will be in Democrats’ political interest to delegitimize a partisan Republican court waging war against a Congress and state governments under Democratic control.”

 

If Democrats have control of one house of Congress, Kavanaugh’s possible lifetime appointment and deep unpopularity—he’s less popular than Trump—will make him “appear to them as a wounded, vulnerable prey.”

 

What can Democrats do? Plenty, Bloomberg says. Though there is no real precedent, Supreme Court justices can be impeached from office. And they can be investigated by Congress for that purpose.

 

“Democrats can revisit evidence of his misleading testimony,” Wilkinson writes for Bloomberg. “They can pursue documentary corroboration, among the vast trove to which Republicans denied the Democrats and the public access, to buttress potential claims of perjury. And if Ford is bullied out of her moment now, they can give the alleged victim a belated but still-powerful platform, designed to her specifications.”

 

Read the full piece herehttps://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-21/brett-kavanaugh-is-cursed-either-way

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/heres-democrats-can-destroy-brett-kavanaugh-even-makes-onto-supreme-court/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

There’s also Smyth, who is neither victim nor perp nor witness. He doesn’t remember either. 

Now there is Keyser. So you have 3 people with reason to lie (Ford, Kavanaugh and Judge) and 2 who don’t. 

Unfortnuately, neither of the 2 who have no reason to lie agrees with Ford. 

Yeah I skipped right over the Smith dude. 

 

 

 

But two folks not remembering a party thirty six years ago being deserving of the oh come on gif......... Seems pretty far out there to me. The other three have skin in the game. Even the way the article was worded was pretty telling to me. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jpowers said:

Yeah I skipped right over the Smith dude. 

 

 

 

But two folks not remembering a party thirty six years ago being deserving of the oh come on gif......... Seems pretty far out there to me. The other three have skin in the game. Even the way the article was worded was pretty telling to me. 

 

It’s a NY Times article. They’re hardly tanking it for Kavanaugh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, don’t forget the chick who did step forward to corroborate by saying “everyone knew” at their high school, only to be reminded that Ford herself said she didn’t tell anyone until 2012. 

Then she deleted her Tweet and changed her story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

It’s a NY Times article. They’re hardly tanking it for Kavanaugh. 

Of course. The wording is still off though. 

 

At the end of the day though you said "reasonable people" should be like come the **** on because two people don't remember a party from thirty six years ago. I think that's off. Way off. 

 

The other three have skin in the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JDaveG said:

So a fifth person alleged by Dr. Ford to be at the party she claims occurred has said she doesn’t know what the **** Ford is talking about.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/22/us/politics/kavanaugh-senate-blasey-ford-testify.html

”But in a possible setback for the woman, Christine Blasey Ford, Republicans on the committee received a statement on Saturday that seemed to eliminate any chance of corroboration of Dr. Blasey’s account by anyone who attended the high school party where she says she was assaulted.

A woman named Leland Keyser — who is believed to have been identified by Dr. Blasey as one of the five people at the party — told the committee through a lawyer that she “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.” Two men said to have been at the party have also told the committee that they have no recollection of the events.”

To which, at some point, reasonable people begin to say:

giphy.gif

I mean, and you know I respect the **** out of you Jdave, your first sentence here is so far off. It's so far out of character I have to call it out. 

 

No, a fifth person didn't call her out. Only five people went to the party. The alleged victim, the alleged perpetrator, and the alleged witness plus two others. 

 

You're off here brother. And it's not like you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jpowers said:

I mean, and you know I respect the **** out of you Jdave, your first sentence here is so far off. It's so far out of character I have to call it out. 

 

No, a fifth person didn't call her out. Only five people went to the party. The alleged victim, the alleged perpetrator, and the alleged witness plus two others. 

 

You're off here brother. And it's not like you. 

 

WOR likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, JayOzOne said:

 

Unless I'm doing the math wrong there was only one other woman. Not women. 

 

There was Kavanaugh, Ford, Judge, Smyth, and Kaiser. 

 

It's one woman, Smyth, the alleged victim, the alleged perpetrator (Kavanaugh), and the witness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jpowers said:

I mean, and you know I respect the **** out of you Jdave, your first sentence here is so far off. It's so far out of character I have to call it out. 

 

No, a fifth person didn't call her out. Only five people went to the party. The alleged victim, the alleged perpetrator, and the alleged witness plus two others. 

 

You're off here brother. And it's not like you. 

Okay, math isn’t my strong suit. 

A fourth person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now