Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YABO713

SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

Maybe we should do away with freedom of the press because the NYT isn’t perfect.  “Enemy of the people!!!”

 

BTW, just for future reference, is getting a news story wrong the same as lying thousands of times to the public?  I’m just trying to establish if your loyalty is with the truth or just against what is perceived as liberal media.  Because I’d definitely say you have a credibility problem.  

 

 

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Maybe we should do away with freedom of the press because the NYT isn’t perfect.  “Enemy of the people!!!”

 

BTW, just for future reference, is getting a news story wrong the same as lying thousands of times to the public?  I’m just trying to establish if your loyalty is with the truth or just against what is perceived as liberal media.  Because I’d definitely say you have a credibility problem.  

 

 

It is about credibility. I don't care if the NYT wants to be liberal or Fox News wants to be a conservative voice. That is up for them to decide internally. The issue is, when you cast yourself as the beacon of truth you don't have margin for error. It means small mistakes will be magnified. You word is who you are so you better go through pains and fact checking upon fact checking to make sure you are right and accurate. It should be better to be right than it is to be first.

 

You act like the NYT article was just an innocent mistake and the fact that a minor detail was just casually overlooked. That is not the case. In this case, the most important detail of the story, the fact the victim does not remember the incident, was omitted. This is not journalism, it is a hack job. It is one thing to make a mistake on a date or other detail, that may be significant, is easy to see was just a mistake and does not change the entire character of the story. In this case, the most important detail was omitted and because of it, a minor story about a book blew up into calls for his impeachment. That is what is irresponsible.

 

If the goal is to expose Trump for being a cheat and a liar, you can't choose sides as a journalist. let the facts fall where they will and don't try and tilt the scale further in your direction. The facts will take care of that on their own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

So what you are saying is that if an investigation does not confirm your predisposed prejudices, keep going until you can turn up something that fits your narrative. Even then, if you cant find anything, then treat uncorroborated rumors as fact because they fit your narrative  better than the truth and facts.

 

You clearly wont settle for anything that does not result in a finding that fits your narrative, even if you have to make it up.  Even the low standards of investigations have standards. Given that the investigation did not provide anything to support your prejudices then it is a sham in your view.  Next time you claim you actually care about the facts, we can remember that this situation proves otherwise.

 

This is not what I said.  It's not what I've ever said.  I don't know why you seem to struggle with what people post here and then concoct something completely made up.

 

I'll boil it down it so it's very easy since this seems to be a trouble spot:

1) There are multiple accusations of alleged sexual assault and misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh.  If these are merely "made up smears" then a more thorough investigation would clear him.  This would be good as it would remove the cloud hanging over him/the Court.

2) The FBI background check was limited in scope.  What is/was preventing the Senate Judiciary Committee from conducting a more thorough investigation?  Could they outsource that to a 3rd party?  Just because the FBI couldn't run down all the supposed witnesses who might corroborate the stories doesn't mean another entity couldn't.  And just because the investigation was partial (at best) doesn't mean we should give up on trying to get as close to the truth as possible.

3) I want to know the truth, or the truth as best we can find it considering the time that has elapsed.  I believe the American people deserve to know the truth - and that goes beyond the FBI interviewing four people privy to one of the alleged incidents.  Will we ever fully know, indisputably, the truth of all these incidents?  Probably not.  Could we get closer to that point than where we are now?  Of course.

 

I have no narrative I'm trying to fit other than what I just outlined.  I would very much appreciate if you would refrain from your made up fantasies about my motives and stick to what I've posted.  It would make these forum discussions go a lot better.

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Washington Times piles on as well, though that's of course a bit more predictable, and thus less noteworthy than the WaPo:

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/17/with-brett-kavanaugh-debacle-the-new-york-times-be/

 

Here’s why what The Times did Sunday is far worse than what they normally do. It’s one thing to spin facts and twist context to make a case (both sides do that). But omitting a fact that kills your entire story is an entirely different thing.

 

This wasn’t an accident. That detail — the fact that friends of the alleged victim told the book authors that she doesn’t remember a thing about the alleged incident — was contained later in the book, which was written by the same people who wrote the article. They knew that they were lying by omission and they did it anyway.

 

More. The editors of the piece, who (duh) should have read the book by then, knew that, too. They all knew that the piece would hit social media hard and trend heavily, (it did, with the headline, “NYT reporters’ book details new sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh”).

 

Even more. The authors on Tuesday said they had included the important information but claimed an editor took it out. And yet they let the story run, saying nothing to anyone until they were found out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

The facts that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed by the authors, and apparently told friends that she doesn’t recall any such incident, amount to the very definition of a non-story. For the record, The Post learned of the accusation last year but declined to publish it because the alleged witnesses weren’t identified and the woman said to be involved refused to comment.

 

An alleged victim refusing to be interviewed doesn't mean you kill the story.  Hearing third hand that "she doesn't recall" doesn't mean it didn't happen.  The witness who attempted to contact the FBI was identified by the NYT.

 

By this weird standard, Brock Turner never raped his victim because she couldn't remember it.  Any woman who's ever been date raped was never actually assaulted if they couldn't remember it.  In what bizarro world are we living if we discount eye witness testimony because the alleged victim's memory may be faulty or incomplete?  Should the NYT have included those caveats in the original article? Absolutely.  Does it invalidate the claim of Stier?  Absolutely not.

 

Also, it's very interesting that conservatives are refusing to acknowledge that reporters have found at least 7 people willing to testify that Kavanaugh's "incident" was talked about in the days after it was alleged to have occurred.  Remember Kavanaugh's testimony? 

Quote

KENNEDY: Are Ms. Ramirez’s allegations about you true?

KAVANAUGH: Those are not. She — no — no — none of the witnesses in the room support that. The — if that — that had happened, that would have been the talk of campus in our freshman dorm.

 

By Kavanaugh's own standard it happened.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

This is not what I said.  It's not what I've ever said.  I don't know why you seem to struggle with what people post here and then concoct something completely made up.

 

I'll boil it down it so it's very easy since this seems to be a trouble spot:

1) There are multiple accusations of alleged sexual assault and misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh.  If these are merely "made up smears" then a more thorough investigation would clear him.  This would be good as it would remove the cloud hanging over him/the Court.

2) The FBI background check was limited in scope.  What is/was preventing the Senate Judiciary Committee from conducting a more thorough investigation?  Could they outsource that to a 3rd party?  Just because the FBI couldn't run down all the supposed witnesses who might corroborate the stories doesn't mean another entity couldn't.  And just because the investigation was partial (at best) doesn't mean we should give up on trying to get as close to the truth as possible.

3) I want to know the truth, or the truth as best we can find it considering the time that has elapsed.  I believe the American people deserve to know the truth - and that goes beyond the FBI interviewing four people privy to one of the alleged incidents.  Will we ever fully know, indisputably, the truth of all these incidents?  Probably not.  Could we get closer to that point than where we are now?  Of course.

 

I have no narrative I'm trying to fit other than what I just outlined.  I would very much appreciate if you would refrain from your made up fantasies about my motives and stick to what I've posted.  It would make these forum discussions go a lot better.

As explained to you earlier and to address your points yet again.

1) If these are merely "made up smears" then a more thorough investigation would clear him.  This would be good as it would remove the cloud hanging over him/the Court.  - As with any investigation, there are certain evidentiary standards that must be followed. You can't just accuse someone of a crime and expect it to be investigated with the same thoroughness of a crime with a strong evidence trail. You cannot investigate based on speculation and conjecture. Based on the evidence available and the scope of the FBI's jurisdiction, an investigation was conducted. You would have to trust that it was done sufficiently based on the standards that these investigations use.

2) And just because the investigation was partial (at best) doesn't mean we should give up on trying to get as close to the truth as possible. - What type of investigation are you truly seeking here? There is no grounds for a criminal investigation, nor would the law and fairness allow something like that.  Again, it just seems that you are not satisfied with any result that does not meet your preconceived narrative.  It seems as if you are on a witch hunt. Whether it be this or Russian collusion, you apparently want it to fit your narrative.

3) Will we ever fully know, indisputably, the truth of all these incidents?  Probably not.  Could we get closer to that point than where we are now?  Of course - A 30+ year old case of "he said/she said" we will not get any further than what we know already. All the witnesses in the Balsey Ford case have been spoken too. Her own friends deny her story. I don't really think there is any more that needs to be said on the matter.  Investigating his college experience does nothing to corroborate the Balsey Ford incident. There is nothing from a supposed drunken college experience (which the victim denies happened anyway) that would help prove Balsey Ford's story.

 

So again, this goes to your pre-conceived conspiracy theory you hold. Just because the facts don't match your narrative, you keep trying to find something that does.

Share this post


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

 

An alleged victim refusing to be interviewed doesn't mean you kill the story.  Hearing third hand that "she doesn't recall" doesn't mean it didn't happen.  The witness who attempted to contact the FBI was identified by the NYT.

 

By this weird standard, Brock Turner never raped his victim because she couldn't remember it.  Any woman who's ever been date raped was never actually assaulted if they couldn't remember it.  In what bizarro world are we living if we discount eye witness testimony because the alleged victim's memory may be faulty or incomplete?  Should the NYT have included those caveats in the original article? Absolutely.  Does it invalidate the claim of Stier?  Absolutely not.

 

Also, it's very interesting that conservatives are refusing to acknowledge that reporters have found at least 7 people willing to testify that Kavanaugh's "incident" was talked about in the days after it was alleged to have occurred.  Remember Kavanaugh's testimony? 

 

By Kavanaugh's own standard it happened.

How pathetic. Just give up on it already.

 

The victim will not corroborate the story. If the victim does not corroborate it, IT IS HEARSAY. HEARSAY is not a journalistic standard, it is certainly not a standard to convict someone in court. The lack of a victim does not meet Stier was lying, only that his account is not as credible as the victim. If the victim denies it happening, the 3rd party account is not as strong.


Brock Turner case does not even apply here. That is such a horrendous comparison and you completely twist the FACTS. In the Turner case, you had two witnesses intervene in the matter not only catch him in the act but apprehend him at the scene of the crime. They were more than 3rd party witnesses, they were actually part of the event. Also it was real time and 30 years did not go by between the witness statement and event. Furthermore, you have physical evidence in the Brock Turner case showing the victim was physically penetrated whether she was conscious or not. You have a person who is caught in the act and the physical evidence to corroborate the story.  THIS IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE. I know evidentiary standards are tough for you to grasp but the Turner fact pattern and Stier/Kavanaugh/Ramirez fact pattern are not even relatable.

 

Again, it is just another denial of the facts and trying to reinvent them to fit into a preconceived narrative on your end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

How pathetic. Just give up on it already.

 

The victim will not corroborate the story. If the victim does not corroborate it, IT IS HEARSAY. HEARSAY is not a journalistic standard, it is certainly not a standard to convict someone in court. The lack of a victim does not meet Stier was lying, only that his account is not as credible as the victim. If the victim denies it happening, the 3rd party account is not as strong.


Brock Turner case does not even apply here. That is such a horrendous comparison and you completely twist the FACTS. In the Turner case, you had two witnesses intervene in the matter not only catch him in the act but apprehend him at the scene of the crime. They were more than 3rd party witnesses, they were actually part of the event. Also it was real time and 30 years did not go by between the witness statement and event. Furthermore, you have physical evidence in the Brock Turner case showing the victim was physically penetrated whether she was conscious or not. You have a person who is caught in the act and the physical evidence to corroborate the story.  THIS IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE. I know evidentiary standards are tough for you to grasp but the Turner fact pattern and Stier/Kavanaugh/Ramirez fact pattern are not even relatable.

 

So literally any person who has been date raped alone with their attacker who doesn't come forth immediately = hearsay?  Wtf?

 

The victim may not want to talk to journalists.  She may be willing to talk to the FBI.  Stier is an eyewitness.  How do we even know there weren't other people there / other people that might be willing to come forward?  This is the first we're hearing of it.  But you'd rather bury your head in the sand than try to find out.  Amazing stuff.

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

As explained to you earlier and to address your points yet again.

1) If these are merely "made up smears" then a more thorough investigation would clear him.  This would be good as it would remove the cloud hanging over him/the Court.  - As with any investigation, there are certain evidentiary standards that must be followed. You can't just accuse someone of a crime and expect it to be investigated with the same thoroughness of a crime with a strong evidence trail. You cannot investigate based on speculation and conjecture. Based on the evidence available and the scope of the FBI's jurisdiction, an investigation was conducted. You would have to trust that it was done sufficiently based on the standards that these investigations use.

2) And just because the investigation was partial (at best) doesn't mean we should give up on trying to get as close to the truth as possible. - What type of investigation are you truly seeking here? There is no grounds for a criminal investigation, nor would the law and fairness allow something like that.  Again, it just seems that you are not satisfied with any result that does not meet your preconceived narrative.  It seems as if you are on a witch hunt. Whether it be this or Russian collusion, you apparently want it to fit your narrative.

 

This is super confusing - there is no grounds for a criminal investigation (which this wasn't) and there are certain evidentiary standards that must be followed (why? this wasn't a criminal investigation).  I feel like I'm repeating myself from September 2018 - no one has ever argued this was or should be a criminal investigation.  You're arguing against a strawmen there instead of what I said and it's blatantly bad faith.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

All the witnesses in the Balsey Ford case have been spoken too. Her own friends deny her story.

 

This is a blatant lie.  I don't know to more kindly ask this - stop making things up.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Investigating his college experience does nothing to corroborate the Balsey Ford incident. 

 

That's...not at all that goal or the point.  This sentence is entirely irrelevant.

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

There is nothing from a supposed drunken college experience (which the victim denies happened anyway) that would help prove Balsey Ford's story.

 

Again, not the point.  At the risk of being super redundant, all I can do is ask you to re-read prior posts.

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

So again, this goes to your pre-conceived conspiracy theory you hold. Just because the facts don't match your narrative, you keep trying to find something that does.

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Again, it is just another denial of the facts and trying to reinvent them to fit into a preconceived narrative on your end.

 

These are baseless trolling attacks, and it seems you seem fit to be stuck in your own theory about me despite what I have posted.  I will refer you back to re-read what I have written and, once again, kindly ask you to stop making up lies about me on this forum so our discussions will go better.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

So literally any person who has been date raped alone with their attacker who doesn't come forth immediately = hearsay?  Wtf?

 

Not saying the date rape did not happen, but there is an evidentiary standard that must be met. If you claim to be date raped and tell a 3rd party about it yet refuse to speak to anyone else, and that third party is the one who reports it, it is the definition of hearsay and would not be admissible in a court proceeding and not be a standard police would use for an investigation.

 

13 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

The victim may not want to talk to journalists.  She may be willing to talk to the FBI.  Stier is an eyewitness.  How do we even know there weren't other people there / other people that might be willing to come forward?  This is the first we're hearing of it.  But you'd rather bury your head in the sand than try to find out.  Amazing stuff.

That may be true, but the accuracy of an event 30 years ago of a victim recalling an event is often deemed to be a lot more accurate than a 3rd party witness. Studies have proven this time and time again. The victim's account carries much more weight. All we know is that there was a dorm party (which by the space involved cant be too large). The question both you and I make assumptions on is whether the other parties in the room saw this or not and were questioned by it. You take the assumption they were not questioned on it. I am making the assumption that those who could have been identified were questioned and did not remember seeing anything, which is why it was not reported. This appears to be a question that you want to know as fact, even if in fact it seems to have been answered sufficiently.

 

19 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

This is a blatant lie.  I don't know to more kindly ask this - stop making things up.

 

That's...not at all that goal or the point.  This sentence is entirely irrelevant.

 

 

Again, not the point.  At the risk of being super redundant, all I can do is ask you to re-read prior posts.

 

 

 

  The witnesses in the room and at the party were interviewed by the FBI. That was 3 people. Kavanaugh's friend (supposedbly in the room) denied the account. Leland Keyser, her old high school friend has come out and denied the event happened and said she does not believe Balsey Ford. So how am I making this up? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/17/key-witness-brett-kavanaugh-saga-comes-down-his-side/

 

Outside of the witnesses in the Balsey Ford party, the other details that are there to try and prove her story involve unrelated college parties that he may or may not have attended. This is totally irrelevant to Balsey Ford's account, and Balsey Ford's account is the only one that really matters in the Kavanaugh investigation. Everything else was intended to try and show Kavanaugh as a liar and Balsey Ford as credible. To you point, his drunken college stories are irrelevant in that regard.

 

Not trolling you. and I do believe it is time to dial down the rhetoric as @Gramarye has asked us to do. I am simply pointing out the facts of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s interesting how the people who always have these stories, histories and multiple accusations pretty much always end up guilty.  And no, this isn’t political.  Trump was and is accused, but his 2016 Republican opponents weren’t.  Whether it’s Cosby or Weinstein, Trump or Clinton, this stuff follows them around for a reason.  Had there been another nominee besides Kavanaugh, it’s unlikely there would’ve been similar accusations.  Because again, it’s not political.  People who have this in their past tend to have it show up when they’re being vetted for something or in public view.  Now, we cant punish or indict on the perception of guilt, but desperately trying to say nothing is there is pretty gross when you consider the scope of the potential crimes.  You’d have to be a real scumbag to not want to see a thorough- and fair- investigation.  Sadly, in terms of justice, politics will likely prevent that from ever happening.  

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

It’s interesting how the people who always have these stories, histories and multiple accusations pretty much always end up guilty.  And no, this isn’t political.  Trump was and is accused, but his 2016 Republican opponents weren’t.  Whether it’s Cosby or Weinstein, Trump or Clinton, this stuff follows them around for a reason.  Had there been another nominee besides Kavanaugh, it’s unlikely there would’ve been similar accusations.  Because again, it’s not political.  People who have this in their past tend to have it show up when they’re being vetted for something or in public view.  Now, we cant punish or indict on the perception of guilt, but desperately trying to say nothing is there is pretty gross when you consider the scope of the potential crimes.  You’d have to be a real scumbag to not want to see a thorough- and fair- investigation.  Sadly, in terms of justice, politics will likely prevent that from ever happening.  

I understand what you are saying and while I agree that you have merit to your claims,  I don't think it accurately describes the situation regarding Kavanaugh, and if anything actually helps prove his innocence.

If you look at Weinstein, Trump, Clinton, Woody Allen, etc. you have a history of such behavior behind the curtain. Trump had been in the news for his womanizing for decades, same with Clinton. Harvey Weinstein had been whispered about in Hollywood for a long time. Woody Allen was a known perv amongst the whisper circles, and even Bill Cosby had people behind the scenes talking about how he was not as pure as his public image.

With Kavanaugh, there was nothing. For 30 years as an attorney and judge, he was seen as a boy scout by those who have interacted with him. No former law clerk or employee or secretary has ever hinted (that we know of) of inappropriate behavior. You would naturally expect someone who engages in such behavior to have incidents throughout their life. People just don't turn the scumbag part off. In addition, the accusations and whisper campaign did not start coming out until 30+ years after the fact and usually when one comes out, a flood of others come too, and people to corroborate them come out of the woodwork too. We are not seeing that in this case. That is the one area that would give me pause about your statement.

Share this post


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

With Kavanaugh, there was nothing. For 30 years as an attorney and judge, he was seen as a boy scout by those who have interacted with him. No former law clerk or employee or secretary has ever hinted (that we know of) of inappropriate behavior. You would naturally expect someone who engages in such behavior to have incidents throughout their life. People just don't turn the scumbag part off. In addition, the accusations and whisper campaign did not start coming out until 30+ years after the fact and usually when one comes out, a flood of others come too, and people to corroborate them come out of the woodwork too. We are not seeing that in this case. That is the one area that would give me pause about your statement.

 

I, too, like to bury my head in the sand in the face of reports that at least 7 people were aware of and discussed the Deborah Ramirez allegation while at Yale.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


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

I understand what you are saying and while I agree that you have merit to your claims,  I don't think it accurately describes the situation regarding Kavanaugh, and if anything actually helps prove his innocence.

If you look at Weinstein, Trump, Clinton, Woody Allen, etc. you have a history of such behavior behind the curtain. Trump had been in the news for his womanizing for decades, same with Clinton. Harvey Weinstein had been whispered about in Hollywood for a long time. Woody Allen was a known perv amongst the whisper circles, and even Bill Cosby had people behind the scenes talking about how he was not as pure as his public image.

With Kavanaugh, there was nothing. For 30 years as an attorney and judge, he was seen as a boy scout by those who have interacted with him. No former law clerk or employee or secretary has ever hinted (that we know of) of inappropriate behavior. You would naturally expect someone who engages in such behavior to have incidents throughout their life. People just don't turn the scumbag part off. In addition, the accusations and whisper campaign did not start coming out until 30+ years after the fact and usually when one comes out, a flood of others come too, and people to corroborate them come out of the woodwork too. We are not seeing that in this case. That is the one area that would give me pause about your statement.

 

Again, you're attempting to make it purely political, but in reality, that seems to very rarely be the case.  And because the accusations were basically ignored or disbelieved and not investigated much, every time a new accusation emerges against Kavanaugh, he'll never be able to shake that lingering doubt.  I have no idea why conservatives are so afraid of claims being fully investigated... unless, of course, they have the same lingering doubts too and can't risk losing that grip on power.  We all know that if this had been a Democrat or liberal, Republicans would still be opening investigations and he definitely never would've been confirmed.  You guys, at the very least, should've nominated someone without this potential baggage, but it just goes back to the push for power at any cost.  And you can't really argue otherwise.  Even you admit Trump had all that baggage, if not even significantly more, and you all rallied around him like he was a cop who  just shot a black kid in the back.  At some point, the GOP and conservatives will have to stop pretending they even care about justice or the rule of law.  The mask is off.

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Again, you're attempting to make it purely political, but in reality, that seems to very rarely be the case.  And because the accusations were basically ignored or disbelieved and not investigated much, every time a new accusation emerges against Kavanaugh, he'll never be able to shake that lingering doubt.  I have no idea why conservatives are so afraid of claims being fully investigated... unless, of course, they have the same lingering doubts too and can't risk losing that grip on power.  We all know that if this had been a Democrat or liberal, Republicans would still be opening investigations and he definitely never would've been confirmed.  You guys, at the very least, should've nominated someone without this potential baggage, but it just goes back to the push for power at any cost.  And you can't really argue otherwise.  Even you admit Trump had all that baggage, if not even significantly more, and you all rallied around him like he was a cop who  just shot a black kid in the back.  At some point, the GOP and conservatives will have to stop pretending they even care about justice or the rule of law.  The mask is off.

There is a lot there. And no, I was not making it political at all. You jumped on me for disagreeing with you and acted like I was acting overly political in this. If you read what I wrote, politics has nothing to do with it.

My point to you was that based on the facts, it was not the same as the Weinstein example or even Trump or Clinton. There are things that would give many people pause. You may choose to respectfully disagree with my point of view, just like I have with yours. There is nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree on this.

 

From my perspective, the threshold for Kavanaugh has not been met. In your opinion it has. I take a strong view that Due Process is something that should never be taken away, so I am a staunch defender of this right, no matter who may be accused.  If anything, your statements was a thinly veiled political statement offering a weak attempt to try and capture some type of moral high ground. That is not what is going on here. We are free to disagree with each other about this, and it is evident that you have a different take than I do, but you seem to want to make assumptions about me that are often wrong.  For starters, I never voted for Trump, don't intend to next time either. I however, do not have such seething hatred for the man that whenever I hear his name, I lose my sh*t, which some members of this forum apparently have a tendency to do.

It is a shame that you are trying to act like you care about the rule of law when you openly disregard due process rights as well as other rights of the accused when it suits your political viewpoint. If you are not willing to stand up for the rights of the morally reprehensible, then how can you expect someone to expect to stand up for your rights when you are the one accused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

I, too, like to bury my head in the sand in the face of reports that at least 7 people were aware of and discussed the Deborah Ramirez allegation while at Yale.

False

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

With Kavanaugh, there was nothing. For 30 years as an attorney and judge, he was seen as a boy scout by those who have interacted with him. No former law clerk or employee or secretary has ever hinted (that we know of) of inappropriate behavior. You would naturally expect someone who engages in such behavior to have incidents throughout their life. People just don't turn the scumbag part off. In addition, the accusations and whisper campaign did not start coming out until 30+ years after the fact and usually when one comes out, a flood of others come too, and people to corroborate them come out of the woodwork too. We are not seeing that in this case. That is the one area that would give me pause about your statement.

 

1) You clearly haven't read (or are ignoring) what Amy Chua has said about his female clerks.

2) "You would naturally expect someone who engages in such behavior to have incidents throughout their life." - Are...are we just pretending that Ford, Ramirez, and what Stier alleges to have witnesses aren't all incidents?  That they all lied about those incidents and then lied in attempting to contact the FBI before the first allegation became public?  That there isn't even a slight possibility this was a repeat pattern of behavior in his teens and early 20s?

3) "The accusations and whisper campaign did not start coming out until 30+ years after the fact."  This is why I said you're burying your head in the sand.

Quote

"At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez's mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge.

 

Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time."

 

Did the "whisper campaign" reach national conscience back then?  Of course not.  You may be surprised that many victims just want to move on with their life or don't want to press charges or any other variety of things.  Ford's therapist corroborated that she told her story about Kavanaugh in a therapy session - before the "whisper campaign" was out there.  So to say these allegations weren't out there until 30+ years after the fact is either a) ignoring the facts in front of you or b) calling every one of them liars -> which is some pretty "deep state" stuff for these people to make up claims about a SCOTUS nominee 30 years before his nomination.

 

4) "A flood of others come too, and people to corroborate them come out of the wood work too. 

 

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

With Kavanaugh, there was nothing. For 30 years as an attorney and judge, he was seen as a boy scout by those who have interacted with him. No former law clerk or employee or secretary has ever hinted (that we know of) of inappropriate behavior. You would naturally expect someone who engages in such behavior to have incidents throughout their life. People just don't turn the scumbag part off. In addition, the accusations and whisper campaign did not start coming out until 30+ years after the fact and usually when one comes out, a flood of others come too, and people to corroborate them come out of the woodwork too. We are not seeing that in this case. That is the one area that would give me pause about your statement.

 

1) You clearly haven't read (or are ignoring) what Amy Chua has said about his female clerks.

2) "You would naturally expect someone who engages in such behavior to have incidents throughout their life." - Are...are we just pretending that Ford, Ramirez, and what Stier alleges to have witnesses aren't all incidents?  That they all lied in attempting to contact the FBI before the first allegation became public?  That there isn't even a slight possibility this was a repeat pattern of behavior in his teens and early 20s?

3) "The accusations and whisper campaign did not start coming out until 30+ years after the fact."  This is why I said you're burying your head in the sand.

Quote

"At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez's mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge.

 

Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time."

 

Did the "whisper campaign" reach national conscience back then?  Of course not.  You may be surprised that many victims just want to move on with their life or don't want to press charges or any other variety of things.  Ford's therapist corroborated her story about Kavanaugh in a therapy session - before the "whisper campaign" was out there.  So to say these allegations weren't out there until 30+ years after the fact is either a) ignoring the facts in front of you or b) calling every one of them liars -> which is some pretty "deep state" stuff for these people to make up claims about a SCOTUS nominee 30 years before his nomination.

 

4) "A flood of others come too, and people to corroborate them come out of the wood work too.  We are not seeing that in this case."  See: Ramirez, 7 people who heard of the alleged incident in the days after, Stier - none of whom were ever contacted or interviewed by the FBI despite their attempts to get in touch.  This is literally burying your head in the sand.

50 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I take a strong view that Due Process is something that should never be taken away, so I am a staunch defender of this right, no matter who may be accused.  

 

It is a shame that you are trying to act like you care about the rule of law when you openly disregard due process rights as well as other rights of the accused when it suits your political viewpoint.

 

5) This never was and never has been a criminal investigation.  Due Process does not apply in this case, and it certainly is not the standard to nominating someone to SCOTUS.  We all told you this a thousand times last year, but you're still parroting it here like it's somehow relevant.  No one is (was) expecting Kavanaugh to be investigated for the purposes of being charged with a crime.  It's mildly infuriating that you don't care to process this into your posts.

 

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 3:27 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

Again, trying to get someone to corroborate the stories and the facts is important. 

 

We agree! We should have the FBI or some other 3rd party at least try to corroborate and get the facts.  I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with yourself from one year ago?  But yes, it is important - I do agree on that.

 

Look, this discussion is going nowhere.  Your posts are the literal embodiment of arguing in bad faith.  You don't want to acknowledge anything that is even remotely possibly damaging to Kavanaugh and construct everything you say around that.  All of your narratives above are simply untrue.  There is no point in furthering this discussion.  I have outlined what I think and why I think that in what I believe was a very rational fashion.  You decided to attack me over multiple posts that I have a "pre conceived theory" and want things to continue until they fit my theory, none of which is true.  At this point, I will, like Gramarye has with me, kindly ask you to refrain from quoting my posts in the future here since I have tried to engage in a reasonable discussion but that doesn't seem to be where you want to take this.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


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

There is a lot there. And no, I was not making it political at all. You jumped on me for disagreeing with you and acted like I was acting overly political in this. If you read what I wrote, politics has nothing to do with it.

My point to you was that based on the facts, it was not the same as the Weinstein example or even Trump or Clinton. There are things that would give many people pause. You may choose to respectfully disagree with my point of view, just like I have with yours. There is nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree on this.

 

From my perspective, the threshold for Kavanaugh has not been met. In your opinion it has. I take a strong view that Due Process is something that should never be taken away, so I am a staunch defender of this right, no matter who may be accused.  If anything, your statements was a thinly veiled political statement offering a weak attempt to try and capture some type of moral high ground. That is not what is going on here. We are free to disagree with each other about this, and it is evident that you have a different take than I do, but you seem to want to make assumptions about me that are often wrong.  For starters, I never voted for Trump, don't intend to next time either. I however, do not have such seething hatred for the man that whenever I hear his name, I lose my sh*t, which some members of this forum apparently have a tendency to do.

It is a shame that you are trying to act like you care about the rule of law when you openly disregard due process rights as well as other rights of the accused when it suits your political viewpoint. If you are not willing to stand up for the rights of the morally reprehensible, then how can you expect someone to expect to stand up for your rights when you are the one accused.

 

lol, what?  Where did I say Kavanaugh doesn't deserve due process?  I specifically said above that there should be a thorough, but fair investigation.  The investigation to this point has basically been "We don't believe the accusations, so it's case closed".  That's not justice or due process.  That's throwing them out the window for purely political reasons.  If this was Clinton or some other Democrat, I'd want them investigated and I would be railing against Democrats if they pulled the same shady disregard for the process as Republicans have.

 

And it doesn't matter if you didn't vote for Trump.  Your loyalties are always clear, if not for him directly, then certainly for the Republicans whose own loyalties never leave him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

lol, what?  Where did I say Kavanaugh doesn't deserve due process?  I specifically said above that there should be a thorough, but fair investigation.  The investigation to this point has basically been "We don't believe the accusations, so it's case closed".  That's not justice or due process.  That's throwing them out the window for purely political reasons.  If this was Clinton or some other Democrat, I'd want them investigated and I would be railing against Democrats if they pulled the same shady disregard for the process as Republicans have.

 You have to have more than a mere allegation to warrant the investigation. The case was looked into and nothing of substantive evidence turned up to warrant looking into it further. I know the conspiracy theorists wont stop until every angle and nook and cranny is thoroughly examined and years up on years of investigations have taken place, but there comes a time where we just need to accept where the initial investigation has led and move on.

 

1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

1) You clearly haven't read (or are ignoring) what Amy Chua has said about his female clerks.

2) "You would naturally expect someone who engages in such behavior to have incidents throughout their life." - Are...are we just pretending that Ford, Ramirez, and what Stier alleges to have witnesses aren't all incidents?  That they all lied in attempting to contact the FBI before the first allegation became public?  That there isn't even a slight possibility this was a repeat pattern of behavior in his teens and early 20s?

3) "The accusations and whisper campaign did not start coming out until 30+ years after the fact."  This is why I said you're burying your head in the sand.

 

Did the "whisper campaign" reach national conscience back then?  Of course not.  You may be surprised that many victims just want to move on with their life or don't want to press charges or any other variety of things.  Ford's therapist corroborated her story about Kavanaugh in a therapy session - before the "whisper campaign" was out there.  So to say these allegations weren't out there until 30+ years after the fact is either a) ignoring the facts in front of you or b) calling every one of them liars -> which is some pretty "deep state" stuff for these people to make up claims about a SCOTUS nominee 30 years before his nomination.

 

4) "A flood of others come too, and people to corroborate them come out of the wood work too.  We are not seeing that in this case."  See: Ramirez, 7 people who heard of the alleged incident in the days after, Stier - none of whom were ever contacted or interviewed by the FBI despite their attempts to get in touch.  This is literally burying your head in the sand.

 

5) This never was and never has been a criminal investigation.  Due Process does not apply in this case, and it certainly is not the standard to nominating someone to SCOTUS.  We all told you this a thousand times last year, but you're still parroting it here like it's somehow relevant.  No one is (was) expecting Kavanaugh to be investigated for the purposes of being charged with a crime.  It's mildly infuriating that you don't care to process this into your posts.

 

 

We agree! We should have the FBI or some other 3rd party at least try to corroborate and get the facts.  I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with yourself from one year ago?  But yes, it is important - I do agree on that.

 

Look, this discussion is going nowhere.  Your posts are the literal embodiment of arguing in bad faith.  You don't want to acknowledge anything that is even remotely possibly damaging to Kavanaugh and construct everything you say around that.  All of your narratives above are simply untrue.  There is no point in furthering this discussion.  I have outlined what I think and why I think that in what I believe was a very rational fashion.  You decided to attack me over multiple posts that I have a "pre conceived theory" and want things to continue until they fit my theory, none of which is true.  At this point, I will, like Gramarye has with me, kindly ask you to refrain from quoting my posts in the future here since I have tried to engage in a reasonable discussion but that doesn't seem to be where you want to take this.

1) Amy Chua essentially said that his law clerks had a certain look to them. How can you draw the conclusion from that statement that he is a sexual predator? That is utterly ridiculous. Also, if he was known behind the scenes as a pervert, you would think that someone like Amy Chua would advise her own daughter to avoid clerking for him. Given that her daughter is clerking for the guy, I think her statements were pretty innocuous and you are reading waaaay too much into them.

2) I am alleging that Ford and Ramirez were wrong in their claims. Ramirez has come out and said she cant be quite sure of the event anymore. Ford names witnesses who openly deny the incident (this goes to her credibility), Steir was third party and his account amounts to nothing more than hearsay. Does this prove that the events did or did not happen? no, but I don't think the preponderance of the evidence, which is a pretty minimal standard, establishes at this point that the story reported by the accusers is accurate.

3) The whisper campaign is not based on what started when he was nominated. To @jon81oh point, which I find some agreement in, perverts have a long history that follows them even if it may not be reported initially through the media, there are enough people in the private citizenry or colleagues who know behind the scenes, the guy is a pervert. To your point about Amy Chua, do you think she would let her daughter work for the guy if he was that awful of an individual? Before Weinstein got in trouble, there were many actresses that would not work with him and told their friends not to work with him. So far, we never heard this about Kavanaugh. Typically, when someone is a pervert or sex predator, this comes out. It never did.

4) Other claims did come forward, like that Swetnick lady. It was clear that many were dubious from the start and probably did not warrant investigation. I heard the FBI received dozens of claims which were clearly false from the start. Did they all warrant a full investigation even though just by a cursory review they were clearly false? I would not consider that a wise use of limited resources.

5) Legal Due Process is not necessarily at issue here. But Due Process is a matter of fairness. If you are going to accuse someone of something of this magnitude and attempt to ruin their career, you owe them as a matter of decency to a level of due process. Anyone who would deny someone this basic right doesn't have a moral compass in my opinion.

 

Listen we agree that this is going nowhere. You continue to attack me when I have attempted to engage in a civil discussion. You constantly seem to want to troll me and continue to cause trouble. If I may point out, you seem to be the one who continues to quote me and attack my posts. I think if anything we need to agree to dial back the tone of some of our posts going forward. We can agree to disagree without resorting to personal attacks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Listen we agree that this is going nowhere. You continue to attack me when I have attempted to engage in a civil discussion. You constantly seem to want to troll me and continue to cause trouble. If I may point out, you seem to be the one who continues to quote me and attack my posts. I think if anything we need to agree to dial back the tone of some of our posts going forward. We can agree to disagree without resorting to personal attacks.

 

Since you chose not to read or comprehend my post above, I will be placing you on the ignore list, something I have done with no one else here.  Again (I don't know why I have to ask multiple times), please refrain from quoting me or tagging me in your posts.  Have a good day.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

Gorsuch being the possible LGBT swing vote was a development I did not see coming.

If you read his rulings, and also his mentor Scalia, it would make perfect sense he would be the swing vote in this case. He is pure to his textualist belief and is consistent. While that may  mean many conservative opinions especially in bigger cases, it also means he will side with the liberals more than you would think. I believe I read a long time ago that Ginsburg and Scalia sided together more than any other justices on the Court both liberal and conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I thought it was something like that. I knew that Scalia and Ginsburg had a lot of in common on decisions. Gorsuch is a libertarian thinker and often will side with the liberal side when it comes to issues of personal liberty that might run contrary to establishment thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...