U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[Watt-Zeefuik]

FWIW it's become an almost comically regular occurrence that whatever the Republicans are accusing the Democrats of doing at some conspiracy level, they're trying at some smaller scale themselves.

 

This is what the closest thing to "paid protesters" you'll see. 300 Liberty University (Falwell's indoctrination house) students given the day off from school and a free bus trip to DC if they agree to wear "Women for Kavanaugh" (despite the fact that ~60% of them were men) shirts to a rally, then get back to the bus by dark.

 

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/women-for-kavanaugh-crisis-actors/

 

That's what plastic campaigning looks like. Not like this:

 

https://www.politico.com/gallery/2018/10/04/brett-kavanaugh-protests-march-photos-003010?slide=0

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

Susan Collins giving a rambling speech that very much sounds like it will end in a yes for Kavanaugh.

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

16 minutes ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

Susan Collins giving a rambling speech that very much sounds like it will end in a yes for Kavanaugh.

 

Dear God - she’s still going. But will clearly be a yes. Kavanaugh will get the seat barring some further last minute craziness.

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

It’s official - Collins is a yes. Kavanaugh has the votes, irrespective of what Manchin does.

[J.T.F.Robertson]

The ones prevaricating are doing it for show only imo, with never any real intent to go against him. It does, however, give (they think) the appearance of open-mindedness and sympathy toward any potential victims. In reality, fur coat but nae knickers.

 

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

1 minute ago, J.T.F.Robertson said:

The ones prevaricating are doing it for show only imo, with never any real intent to go against him. It does, however, give (they think) the appearance of open-mindedness and sympathy toward any potential victims. In reality, fur coat but nae knickers.

 

 

Manchin has just announced that he will support Kavanaugh. Politically expedient given that his vote doesn’t really matter and that he’s a Democrat in a Trump loving state. May have been a different story if Collins was a yes. But ugh anyway.

[Rodger Mellie]

4 minutes ago, J.T.F.Robertson said:

The ones prevaricating are doing it for show only imo, with never any real intent to go against him. It does, however, give (they think) the appearance of open-mindedness and sympathy toward any potential victims. In reality, fur coat but nae knickers.

 

Totally agree. Manchin should hang his head in shame for voting yes.

[Sharpie]

I took less time to wash the outside windows, clean up the garden for winter, drain and store the garden hoses, than it took ramblin Rosie or whatever her name is to say a simple I will vote yes.  Not the least bit surprised I said a few days ago Kavanaugh would be nominated, the whole F.B.I investigation thing was a travesty, it is a complete impossibility to conduct a full and proper investigation if you are direc ted to whom you can speak and basically what you can report. It however gave wimps like Flake a reason to say yes, and get his retirement from the Senate plan in process.

Stand by now for the next Trump moves, Mueller fired, after Rosenstein has been fired, and immunity for the godfather and his loyal soldiers.

[ri Alban]

Finally!!! NY seem to be about to bring him to shackles, Al Capone style. Tax fraud comes for everyone. 

Tick Tock baldy. 

Edited October 6, 2018 by ri Alban

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Finally!!! NY seem to be about to bring him to shackles, Al Capone style. Tax fraud comes for everyone. 

Tick Tock baldy. 

Great, another straw to clutch at. I don't envy whoever has the job of winding up the ever ticking clock.

My prediction - he will leave office  in one of three ways. Defeat in 2020, death, or at the end of a second term.

[Francis Albert]

18 hours ago, bobsharp said:

 

Sorry double post

Edited October 6, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

17 hours ago, bobsharp said:

So Kavanaugh is through succesfully the procedural vote. I again say I think he will be confirmed. Flake will not say no as he has plans to run for President at some time, he cannot displease McConnel etc. Menchin will go against party and vote yes, and Collins will vote yes, the best that could happen is a tie vote, and of course a principled man like Pence will vote no, thats if he is not too busy trying to start a trade and nuclear war with China.

 

I cannot in any way think what is motivating McConnel and the other eighty year olds on the Senate to support Trump the way they are. Have they looked at their birth certificate, drivers licence or other document with their birth date, if they were an item in a supermarket they would see that they have gone past their best used by date. I speak here from experince actual, not hypothetical.

 

 

It is hard to believe that governance in the United States is in such a state of chaos, yes there are some pieces of good news, unemployment figures are excellent, and other successes, but the country is being run by a man who seems to see a mafia type of leadership as a positive. He like many others have used shady business and tax avoidance systems to progress, even the mafia were good for some but ultimately the leadership went too far and were largely brought down, a country cannot afford that to happen.

 

Apologies to those who's names I have mispelled.

I wouldn't underestimate the importance of how the economy is performing ("it's the economy, stupid" as someone once said about what wins and loses elections.

[Seymour M Hersh]

On 29/09/2018 at 11:55, Justin Z said:

 

I'd like to respectfully request that you engage your brain on this particular aspect of this issue a bit more. Here is some guidance.

 

 

Let’s see now, in 1983 a party was held, she forgot who she was with, or how she got home. She was drinking and said nothing to anyone.
She said nothing.
Roll on 20 years to July 25, 2003: President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit... She said nothing.
Roll on to May 11, 2006: The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary recommended confirmation. Kavanaugh subsequently confirmed by the United States Senate... She said nothing.
June 1, 2006: Kavanaugh sworn in by Justice Anthony Kennedy... She said nothing.
Roll on to 2012, she remembered 'something' happened in 1982, yet doesn't name Kavanaugh, still said nothing to authorities
Roll on to 2017 - She becomes an anti-Trump activist.
2018 - Now 36 years later, with Kavanaugh's SCOTUS confirmation looming, she pens an anonymous letter with grave accusations against Kavanaugh regarding foggy circumstance that occurred while they were both minors, then reveals herself and DEMANDS an FBI investigation before testifying to her incredible allegations?

[Sharpie]

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Let’s see now, in 1983 a party was held, she forgot who she was with, or how she got home. She was drinking and said nothing to anyone.
She said nothing.
Roll on 20 years to July 25, 2003: President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit... She said nothing.
Roll on to May 11, 2006: The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary recommended confirmation. Kavanaugh subsequently confirmed by the United States Senate... She said nothing.
June 1, 2006: Kavanaugh sworn in by Justice Anthony Kennedy... She said nothing.
Roll on to 2012, she remembered 'something' happened in 1982, yet doesn't name Kavanaugh, still said nothing to authorities
Roll on to 2017 - She becomes an anti-Trump activist.
2018 - Now 36 years later, with Kavanaugh's SCOTUS confirmation looming, she pens an anonymous letter with grave accusations against Kavanaugh regarding foggy circumstance that occurred while they were both minors, then reveals herself and DEMANDS an FBI investigation before testifying to her incredible allegations?

 

There is another view on your post which is basically a quoting of the Mitch McConnel presentations to the Senate.  Many of us, particularly although not living in the country have a high interest in the appointment of Kavanaugh. I personally living a short distance from the United States and being a citizen of one of their closest neighbours was interested in the importance of this appointment. With regard to Dr Ford, she was as you say a minor,  she admitted to having had one beer, it may however have been more, she has lived it seems with a belief that Kavanaugh was her attacker, no one it seems disputes that she was attacked what is in doubt despite the credibility of her sworn statement to the Judiciary is whether Kavanaugh was the attacker. You have described them both as minors, slight as the statement is that would be some evidence of Kavanaughs credibility also, he has admitted liking beer whilst in High School and there have been some who stated they drank at that time, so he was an underage drinker, which I stand to be corrected, he claimed that he was eighteen when he was doiing his drinking.

 

The main block I see to his nomination to the Supreme Court is his strong beliefs in some of the legislation that is currently present, Roe v Wade for a start, his views on non ac tion againstt a president while in office, gay rights, same sex marriage, and without a doubt the greatest concern came when I watche the live hearing and his irrational non answers, his anger, his emotions, his conspiracy theories, his threat that what goes around comes around was just not what one expects from a candidate for the highest court in the land. Whether one believes her or not, there is no doubt that the general consensus was that her credibility in her statement was of a higher level than his in his presentation. That credibility is in fact being further questioned c urrently with the information coming that his statement that he knew nothing of the allegation until the media releases, in fact it is being alleged that he was in contact with old friends prior to that asking them to deny.

 

There is much comment on presumption of innocence, and benefit of doubt, do the people of the United States who are completely innocent, not deserve the benefit of the doubt and not to be subjected to a Supreme Court Judge with questionable credentials of credibility for a possible forty years.

 

[Cade]

Kav confirmed.

 

Let's see how many decades of progress they can un-do in the Supreme Court.

[Peebo]

Well that’s the swamp officially drained now. 

[Sharpie]

I must try and watch Trumps rally tonight, he will be something to see, , and his devotees will be in hysterics. Flake and Collins and Manchen(sp) must have some quavers when they think of the future and the responsibility they hold if any of the fears and predictions that have been stated come to fruition.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

8 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

I must try and watch Trumps rally tonight, he will be something to see, , and his devotees will be in hysterics. Flake and Collins and Manchen(sp) must have some quavers when they think of the future and the responsibility they hold if any of the fears and predictions that have been stated come to fruition.

 

And it could get much much worse, as I'm sure I heard that there are 2 current supreme court judges who are in their 80's and as such Trump could quite possibly have the opportunity, especially if he gets a second term to elect 2 more judges to the supreme court.

[Cade]

20 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

And it could get much much worse, as I'm sure I heard that there are 2 current supreme court judges who are in their 80's and as such Trump could quite possibly have the opportunity, especially if he gets a second term to elect 2 more judges to the supreme court.

Only if they very quickly retire before the Mid-terms

[Jambo-Jimbo]

28 minutes ago, Cade said:

Only if they very quickly retire before the Mid-terms

 

That's assuming that the Republicans lose congress or the senate and don't gain a bounce of support from the appointment of Kavanaugh, as some analysts have commented on as being possible.

[Sharpie]

3 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

And it could get much much worse, as I'm sure I heard that there are 2 current supreme court judges who are in their 80's and as such Trump could quite possibly have the opportunity, especially if he gets a second term to elect 2 more judges to the supreme court.

He mentioned that at the rally in Kansas tonight when mentioning the two he had appointed, said something to the effect we can make it four.

[ri Alban]

15 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Great, another straw to clutch at. I don't envy whoever has the job of winding up the ever ticking clock.

My prediction - he will leave office  in one of three ways. Defeat in 2020, death, or at the end of a second term.

Clutching straws. 

 

Death, agonising and in public view. 

[Maple Leaf]

16 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Great, another straw to clutch at. I don't envy whoever has the job of winding up the ever ticking clock.

My prediction - he will leave office  in one of three ways. Defeat in 2020, death, or at the end of a second term.

 

That looks like a safe prediction.

 

How many other options are there?  Impeachment?  I think we all agree that won't happen, even if the Dems win control of the House.

 

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

12 hours ago, bobsharp said:

 

There is another view on your post which is basically a quoting of the Mitch McConnel presentations to the Senate.  Many of us, particularly although not living in the country have a high interest in the appointment of Kavanaugh. I personally living a short distance from the United States and being a citizen of one of their closest neighbours was interested in the importance of this appointment. With regard to Dr Ford, she was as you say a minor,  she admitted to having had one beer, it may however have been more, she has lived it seems with a belief that Kavanaugh was her attacker, no one it seems disputes that she was attacked what is in doubt despite the credibility of her sworn statement to the Judiciary is whether Kavanaugh was the attacker. You have described them both as minors, slight as the statement is that would be some evidence of Kavanaughs credibility also, he has admitted liking beer whilst in High School and there have been some who stated they drank at that time, so he was an underage drinker, which I stand to be corrected, he claimed that he was eighteen when he was doiing his drinking.

 

The main block I see to his nomination to the Supreme Court is his strong beliefs in some of the legislation that is currently present, Roe v Wade for a start, his views on non ac tion againstt a president while in office, gay rights, same sex marriage, and without a doubt the greatest concern came when I watche the live hearing and his irrational non answers, his anger, his emotions, his conspiracy theories, his threat that what goes around comes around was just not what one expects from a candidate for the highest court in the land. Whether one believes her or not, there is no doubt that the general consensus was that her credibility in her statement was of a higher level than his in his presentation. That credibility is in fact being further questioned c urrently with the information coming that his statement that he knew nothing of the allegation until the media releases, in fact it is being alleged that he was in contact with old friends prior to that asking them to deny.

 

There is much comment on presumption of innocence, and benefit of doubt, do the people of the United States who are completely innocent, not deserve the benefit of the doubt and not to be subjected to a Supreme Court Judge with questionable credentials of credibility for a possible forty years.

 

 

I posted that to show how polar opposite the views on this alleged incident are and as a possible rebuttal to the quote by the poster.  I have no idea if this guy is worthy of the post or not and really don't care tbh. American politics is a cess pit and has been for decades. However I seem to remember similar sort of fuss with Clarence Thomas and that he'd be so right wing etc etc. I could not tell you who all the SCOTI (arf) are or their political affiliation but I don't remember outcries to democratic nominees (although I am sure there might have been some). As for his credibility have you examined his record as a Judge of the DC appeals court circuit? I've not and I'm not going to but it might give a clearer idea if he is going to act as you suggest. As for the drinking under age it depends what state he was in as they did not align to all being 21 until 84. When I lived in NC (81) they had 2 age limit believe it or not. 18 for beer and wine and 21 for hard liquor! Iirc Reagan's administration threatened to pull federal funding if the states did not go to a universal 21 age limit. 

[Francis Albert]

7 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

That looks like a safe prediction.

 

How many other options are there?  Impeachment?  I think we all agree that won't happen, even if the Dems win control of the House.

 

 

We've had 189 pages much of them about other ways he might be removed from office. The post I replied to suggested that like Al Capone the tax authorities would bring him down.

[ri Alban]

12 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

We've had 189 pages much of them about other ways he might be removed from office. The post I replied to suggested that like Al Capone the tax authorities would bring him down.

I'm right you're wrang. #Downwiththe trumpetandhisenablers

[Francis Albert]

11 hours ago, ri Alban said:

I'm right you're wrang. #Downwiththe trumpetandhisenablers

You may be right but it still doesn't justify Maple Leaf's claim that "we all agree" Trump won't be overthrown other than by failing to win in 2020, death, or completion of two terms.

[Ulysses]

20 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

That looks like a safe prediction.

 

How many other options are there?  Impeachment?  I think we all agree that won't happen, even if the Dems win control of the House.

 

 

 

He may also decide not to run again in 2020, but otherwise that's about it.  He's not going to be impeached, or drop dead, or any of the other Trump-hater fantasies.

[ri Alban]

3 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

He may also decide not to run again in 2020, but otherwise that's about it.  He's not going to be impeached, or drop dead, or any of the other Trump-hater fantasies.

Do try to make out you are not a Trump hater. 

Edited October 8, 2018 by ri Alban

[Francis Albert]

A rare possibly unique bit of praise for Trump in of all places Private Eye. It reports on China's suppression of the Uyghur Muslim population of the Xinjiang province in western China. A million detained in "re-education camps" (shades of Mao) where various forms of torture are employed while their children are placed in orphanages. The Muslim religion suppressed in favour of Chinese "cultural values". Numerous prominent Uyghur's have disappeared. The world (including much of the Muslim world) remains silent in the interests of maintaining good relations, trade and investment with the "Peoples Republic". The UN, EU, Macron and May (the two Ms having paid their respects to the Chinese leadership in Beijing this year) say nothing.

Just about the only administration anywhere to protest and threaten sanctions is that of the Islamaphobic Trump. Boris when foereign secretary said "people around the world were looking for a lead from Britain" in opposing repression in China. As the Eye report says "they will look in vain; but who would have thought that President Trump, the least politic of politicians, would be the last decent man standing".

 

Well in this context if nothing much else.

 

 

Edited October 8, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Maple Leaf]

15 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

You may be right but it still doesn't justify Maple Leaf's claim that "we all agree" Trump won't be overthrown other than by failing to win in 2020, death, or completion of two terms.

 

Read my post again, please.  My "we all agree" comment was regarding the chances of Trump's impeachment.

[Justin Z]

As a man, there's only so much I can really say on behalf of Ford. Maybe us guys should all just stfu and listen.

 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Read my post again, please.  My "we all agree" comment was regarding the chances of Trump's impeachment.

Apologies. I did misread and misrepresent yoiur post.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

As a man, there's only so much I can really say on behalf of Ford. Maybe us guys should all just stfu and listen.

 

Not sure if you are serious but I am not sure what Kavanaugh has been found guilty of other than being white, male and a right wing Republican sharing the views of millions of his fellow citizens however much we may despise those views. Oh and possibly just possibly a worse actor than Ford.

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, Justin Z said:

As a man, there's only so much I can really say on behalf of Ford. Maybe us guys should all just stfu and listen.

 

It's just another victory for the scum. Why would women bother to come forward with results like this. Especially when women senators put the boot in. 

[Sharpie]

Trump this morning declared that the whole Kavanaugh thing was a hoax by the Democrats, so that means that Dr Ford has risked everything to come in front of the Judiciary Commitee and lie on Oath. She of course now has to be charged with lieing to the Senate whilst under Oath. Trump repeatedly during his conversation stated that on numerous occasions many, many people have talked to him about the relevant subjects. He must spend a lot of time speaking to people, fortunately they are all those apparently who agree with him. When asked about his tax returns, he said they are a matter of public record. 

[Sharpie]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Not sure if you are serious but I am not sure what Kavanaugh has been found guilty of other than being white, male and a right wing Republican sharing the views of millions of his fellow citizens however much we may despise those views. Oh and possibly just possibly a worse actor than Ford.

 

You are of course absolutely correct Kavanaugh has been found guily of nothing. Having done a few investigations in my time, I wonder how some of them would have culminated if I had been given a strict time limit, a list of whom I could interview, and a list of whom I could not, I would suspect a greater number of no action than proven cases.

There of course  is no doubt this whole situation  is a circumstance of our own particular values, our own system of evaluation and our system and ability to make our judgement of others. Using mine which again without doubt can not be described as perfect, but despite that based on what I observed, presentation, body language, sincerity and credibility my possibly bias related vote of believability and conduct went to Dr Ford.

 

[Francis Albert]

17 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

 

You are of course absolutely correct Kavanaugh has been found guily of nothing. Having done a few investigations in my time, I wonder how some of them would have culminated if I had been given a strict time limit, a list of whom I could interview, and a list of whom I could not, I would suspect a greater number of no action than proven cases.

There of course  is no doubt this whole situation  is a circumstance of our own particular values, our own system of evaluation and our system and ability to make our judgement of others. Using mine which again without doubt can not be described as perfect, but despite that based on what I observed, presentation, body language, sincerity and credibility my possibly bias related vote of believability and conduct went to Dr Ford.

 

Fair enough but the burden of proof goes a bit further than a subjective view of presentation, body language etc. Maybe a more detailed investigation of these 40 year old alleged crimes would have delivered more solid evidence but I rather doubt it. For what its worth, as a layman (which is who decides guilt or innocence through jury trial) I wasn't really convinced by either of the emotionally over the top performances and while I might have gone for the peculiar Scottish verdict of Not Proven (I think he did it but no-one has proved it) but in the US and England it would have to be Not Guilty.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

27 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

Trump this morning declared that the whole Kavanaugh thing was a hoax by the Democrats, so that means that Dr Ford has risked everything to come in front of the Judiciary Commitee and lie on Oath. She of course now has to be charged with lieing to the Senate whilst under Oath. Trump repeatedly during his conversation stated that on numerous occasions many, many people have talked to him about the relevant subjects. He must spend a lot of time speaking to people, fortunately they are all those apparently who agree with him. When asked about his tax returns, he said they are a matter of public record. 

 

Indeed, she's risked everything including her life, as she's now unable to return to her home due the number of death threats she's received, she has probably lost everything now, her home, her career, everything, but hay-ho it's all been made up, a hoax.

 

Trump needs to be careful of the accusations he's making, especially ones which he hasn't got any evidence for, but only the say-so of 'people he's talked to', someday someone will fight back and I hope it's soon.

[Sharpie]

11 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Fair enough but the burden of proof goes a bit further than a subjective view of presentation, body language etc. Maybe a more detailed investigation of these 40 year old alleged crimes would have delivered more solid evidence but I rather doubt it. For what its worth, as a layman (which is who decides guilt or innocence through jury trial) I wasn't really convinced by either of the emotionally over the top performances and while I might have gone for the peculiar Scottish verdict of Not Proven (I think he did it but no-one has proved it) but in the US and England it would have to be Not Guilty.

 

However as was oft stated during the Hearings, this was not a criminal trial, but was often described as a job interview, thus burden of proof was not an essential, and certainly as a TV viewer the burden if any was minimal, what was more essential was ones judgement as to whether this candidate was the best available, and each individual without any ramification could make their own individual judgement.

.

 

 

[redjambo]

51 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

Trump this morning declared that the whole Kavanaugh thing was a hoax by the Democrats, so that means that Dr Ford has risked everything to come in front of the Judiciary Commitee and lie on Oath. She of course now has to be charged with lieing to the Senate whilst under Oath. Trump repeatedly during his conversation stated that on numerous occasions many, many people have talked to him about the relevant subjects. He must spend a lot of time speaking to people, fortunately they are all those apparently who agree with him. When asked about his tax returns, he said they are a matter of public record. 

 

That is so sad. This is definitely a case of "not proven". Why would he in this case say that her claims were a hoax? Complete disrespect, unless he has evidence to back up his assertion.

[Francis Albert]

6 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

 

However as was oft stated during the Hearings, this was not a criminal trial, but was often described as a job interview, thus burden of proof was not an essential, and certainly as a TV viewer the burden if any was minimal, what was more essential was ones judgement as to whether this candidate was the best available, and each individual without any ramification could make their own individual judgement.

.

 

 

Again fair enough and point taken. Unfortunately the judgement of whether he is the best candidate is over-ridden by, or at least very heavily influenced by, the politics of the candidate and those who are entitled to vote. Such is the American way (and in fact it is not a million miles away from the UK way).

 

I also think, with reference to Jambo Jimbo's post that the "she (or he) must be telling the truth because look how much she (or he)  has to lose" argument is a dangerous basis on which to make a judgement.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Again fair enough and point taken. Unfortunately the judgement of whether he is the best candidate is over-ridden by, or at least very heavily influenced by, the politics of the candidate and those who are entitled to vote. Such is the American way (and in fact it is not a million miles away from the UK way).

 

I also think, with reference to Jambo Jimbo's post that the "she (or he) must be telling the truth because look how much she (or he)  has to lose" argument is a dangerous basis on which to make a judgement.

 

Excuse me, where have I said that she had to be telling the truth because of what she had to lose?  Read the post again, then get back to me.

[Francis Albert]

18 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Excuse me, where have I said that she had to be telling the truth because of what she had to lose?  Read the post again, then get back to me.

I didn't mean to suggest you had. But the things you list as what she had to lose have certainly been used by some as evidence that she

 must be telling the truth.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I didn't mean to suggest you had. But the things you list as what she had to lose have certainly been used by some as evidence that she

 must be telling the truth.

 

Whether she is telling the truth or not, she must have known the second she came forward and made the accusations that her life would never be the same again.

She's a clever woman and as such you'd imagine that she'd have known the shit-storm and the world of pain that would come her way the moment she went public with this, unless of course she's incredibly naive and didn't realise what was going to happen.

Now if as Trump claims it was a made up story and a hoax, it just seems to me that it's a whole world of pain that she didn't need to expose herself to, so why come forward in the first place.

Even if she had somehow managed to stop Kavanaugh's appointment, her life would still have been shit as Trump's devotees would have made sure it was as they seem to be doing now.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

I 100% believe that she’s telling the truth. No doubt whatsoever.

 

but why isn’t this being dealt with as a criminal matter? The hearings have been so far away from due process it’s not true. Shambles of a country, the US

[Sharpie]

6 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

I 100% believe that she’s telling the truth. No doubt whatsoever.

 

but why isn’t this being dealt with as a criminal matter? The hearings have been so far away from due process it’s not true. Shambles of a country, the US

 

The only department as I understand it that can investigate are the Maryland police, there are difficulties also with the statute of limitation, although I believe not in Maryland.  The F.B.I for example do not do sexual assault investigations. Although my legal knowledge is strictly to operational police level, merely being a reporter and not a prosecutor, based on what I heard I suspect it would be a stretch for a prosecutor after the expiry of time, and taking into consideration that the accuser and the witnesses may quite genuinely believe what they are saying the  effect of time in memory may cause a prosecutor to assess the value of the evidence, with no direct witnesses, to feel that to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt would be virtually impossible. It must be considered that both Judge and Kavanaugh say it did not happen, and only Dr Ford can say it did, and her memories are despite her appearance of credibility full of absence of direct evidence to wit, who , what, where,  are all in question.

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Whether she is telling the truth or not, she must have known the second she came forward and made the accusations that her life would never be the same again.

She's a clever woman and as such you'd imagine that she'd have known the shit-storm and the world of pain that would come her way the moment she went public with this, unless of course she's incredibly naive and didn't realise what was going to happen.

Now if as Trump claims it was a made up story and a hoax, it just seems to me that it's a whole world of pain that she didn't need to expose herself to, so why come forward in the first place.

Even if she had somehow managed to stop Kavanaugh's appointment, her life would still have been shit as Trump's devotees would have made sure it was as they seem to be doing now.

Good post.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

I 100% believe that she’s telling the truth. No doubt whatsoever.

 

but why isn’t this being dealt with as a criminal matter? The hearings have been so far away from due process it’s not true. Shambles of a country, the US

 

Because it isn't a criminal matter.  Criminal matters are for the state police (which is also why an FBI investigation was nothing more than a smokescreen for Flake and others).  As I understand it, this was about evidence of fitness of character for the job.  A bit like civil dispute cases, hearings of that nature aren't supposed to operate on the principle of "beyond reasonable doubt"; they should operate on the principle of "reasonable assessment of the balance of probabilities".  In reality, of course, it was a partisan political process.  The Democrats brought forward evidence to discredit the nominee; the Republicans ignored it.  In a sense, it doesn't really matter whether the evidence was true or untrue.  It should, but it doesn't.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

27 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Because it isn't a criminal matter.  Criminal matters are for the state police (which is also why an FBI investigation was nothing more than a smokescreen for Flake and others).  As I understand it, this was about evidence of fitness of character for the job.  A bit like civil dispute cases, hearings of that nature aren't supposed to operate on the principle of "beyond reasonable doubt"; they should operate on the principle of "reasonable assessment of the balance of probabilities".  In reality, of course, it was a partisan political process.  The Democrats brought forward evidence to discredit the nominee; the Republicans ignored it.  In a sense, it doesn't really matter whether the evidence was true or untrue.  It should, but it doesn't.

 

Which is appalling tbh.