Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[LarryBnDC]

To say "no connections" to Yale...it's an obvious lie. 


no

its really not

Yes, it really is.

[LarryBnDC]

Not sure why they have to investigate if Judge worked at Safeway at any point

I dont think anyone is saying Ms Ford lied.

It will corroborate the time frame to within date of her assault.

[bodiddley]

I think it would support her timeline and put more focus on that July 1st date.  Would signal to the FBI to talk to Tobin and Squi about their memories of that night (from way long ago).

Plus Judge at the Safeway does give some minor corroboration of Ford's testimony.  And the records should be super-easy for the FBI to access.

I haven't heard Word One about Kavanaugh and maryjane or any other drugs, whether usage or a denial of such.  Seems rather strange to me that this hasn't come up.

[Driver125]

I dont think anyone is saying Ms Ford lied.

Well, yes, actually, they are. They don’t accept her story, which is the same thing as saying she is lying without saying it out loud. There are two different stories here and only one of them can be true. Someone is lying.

[LarryBnDC]

I dont think anyone is saying Ms Ford lied.

Well, yes, actually, they are. They don’t accept her story, which is the same thing as saying she is lying without saying it out loud. There are two different stories here and only one of them can be true. Someone is lying.

And one of the storytellers has demonstrably lied under oath...

[barton]

Comey, this morning:

In that world, the F.B.I. is now being asked to investigate, on a seven-day clock, sexual assaults that the president says never happened, that some senators have decried as a sham cooked up to derail a Supreme Court nominee, and that other senators believe beyond all doubt were committed by the nominee.

If truth were the only goal, there would be no clock, and the investigation wouldn’t have been sought after the Senate Judiciary Committee already endorsed the nominee. Instead, it seems that the Republican goal is to be able to say there was an investigation and it didn’t change their view, while the Democrats hope for incriminating evidence to derail the nominee.

Although the process is deeply flawed, and apparently designed to thwart the fact-gathering process, the F.B.I. is up for this. It’s not as hard as Republicans hope it will be.

F.B.I. agents are experts at interviewing people and quickly dispatching leads to their colleagues around the world to follow with additional interviews. Unless limited in some way by the Trump administration, they can speak to scores of people in a few days, if necessary.

They will confront people with testimony and other accounts, testing them and pushing them in a professional way. Agents have much better nonsense detectors than partisans, because they aren’t starting with a conclusion.

Yes, the alleged incident occurred 36 years ago. But F.B.I. agents know time has very little to do with memory. They know every married person remembers the weather on their wedding day, no matter how long ago. Significance drives memory. They also know that little lies point to bigger lies. They know that obvious lies by the nominee about the meaning of words in a yearbook are a flashing signal to dig deeper.

Once they start interviewing, every witness knows the consequences. It is one thing to have your lawyer submit a statement on your behalf. It is a very different thing to sit across from two F.B.I. special agents and answer their relentless questions. Of course, the bureau won’t have subpoena power, only the ability to knock on doors and ask questions. But most people will speak to them. Refusal to do so is its own kind of statement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/opinion/james-comey-fbi-kavanaugh-investigation.html

I quoted a major chunk of the article, so that no one could whine about paywalls. 

[kiidcarter8]

I dont think anyone is saying Ms Ford lied.

Well, yes, actually, they are. They don’t accept her story, which is the same thing as saying she is lying without saying it out loud. There are two different stories here and only one of them can be true. Someone is lying.

Driveby!!!!  What up?

Most are saying they have little doubt Ms Ford was assaulted by someone.

[NeedsAdjustments]

I dont think anyone is saying Ms Ford lied.

Well, yes, actually, they are. They don’t accept her story, which is the same thing as saying she is lying without saying it out loud. There are two different stories here and only one of them can be true. Someone is lying.

Driveby!!!!  What up?

Most are saying they have little doubt Ms Ford was assaulted by someone.

Mildly curious how you square this with your reposting, saying "Right On," a description of the Democratic position on Kavanaugh being "character assassination."

She said that it was Kavanaugh with "100% certainty."  She describes a party that is very much like those that Kavanaugh went to (according to his own calendar) with the same people she described being there (again, according to his own calendar) and gives details that identify the people that were there (details you say are not in dispute) but then saying that all this points to Kavanaugh having committed sexual assault is "character assassination?"  How so?

[bankshot1]

Anyone watching that day of dueling testimony, knows who was open and honest, credible and poised and who was prevaricating, evasive, belligerent with something to hide.

Last night Flake reiterated on 60 Minutes that falsehoods under oath would be disqualifying. I hope Senator Jeff from Arizona doesn't lose his balls, and crumble to partisan pressures and threats. He knows the truth, he has a conscience.  Does he have a real backbone?

He has a chance to exit the Senate with dignity and a legacy that his mentor Sen. McCain would be proud of and appreciate.

[barton]

I think there's no point in going further on this.  It's clearly a partisan zero-sum game, and Kid et al have to win.  The absurd  "by someone" tells you all you need to know. 

No one who's a partisan shill is really looking honestly at the big picture.  Here it is for you:

A man credibly identified as committing sexual assault and also breaking other laws (underage drinking) wants to be on the Supreme Court.  At a job interview, he wept and whined and was rude to some of his interviewers, and kept saying how much he liked beer.  And he told a bunch of lies.  Without any further information, would you be in favor of the guy getting that job on the SCt.??

I mean, please. 

[whiskeypriest]

Another casual lie issued from Kavanaugh under oath:

https://www.newsweek.com/kavanaugh-said-he-had-no-connections-yale-he-was-legacy-student-1145286?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

Yeah, what is the Democrats’ problem?  Why wouldn’t anyone want someone who breezily lies under oath on the highest court in the land for the rest of his life?

The article lies

"Kavanaugh ssays he did not drink an unreasonable amount of alcohol"

In fact his testimony was self-inflicting - recall the "I dont know, what is enough to get to the % where youa re intoxicated?"

Kabvanaugh has NEVER stated that he didnt drink to excess.

 "I liked beer. I still like beer.  Do you, Senator?"

Probably not a question to put to the daughter of an alcoholic. Not sure if he knew or not; Kavanaugh seems just the type of asshole to do that.

[barton]

Klobuchar mentioned her father's struggle with alcohol during the hearing.  I am not 100 percent sure she said it before that infamous exchange. 

EDIT:  checked the transcript.  She spoke of the matter early in her questioning, before Kava's infamous reply.

KLOBUCHAR: OK. I’m not going to ask about the yearbook.

So most people have done some drinking in high school and college, and many people even struggle with alcoholism and binge drinking. My own dad struggled with alcoholism most of his life, and he got in trouble for it, and there were consequences. He is still in A.A. at age 90, and he’s sober, and in his words, he was pursued by grace, and that’s how he got through this.

So in your case, you have said, here and other places, that you never drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened. But yet, we have heard — not under oath, but we have heard your college roommate say that you did drink frequently. These are in news reports. That you would sometimes be belligerent. Another classmate said it’s not credible for you to say you didn’t have memory lapses. So drinking is one thing....

[kiidcarter8]

Anyone watching that day of dueling testimony, knows who was open and honest, credible and poised and who was prevaricating, evasive, belligerent with something to hide.

Well then -

have a nice week.

[bankshot1]

I understand the policy consequences of putting another conservative on the SC, but thats life, and "elections have consequneces" and yada, yada, yada, and I can deal with that.

But why does Trump need this guy over all other conservative judges?

Is he the only conservative judge out there who will fuck over women, pay-off big corporations, screw the little guy, and be a Republican stooge?

But other than ascribe to some conspiracy theory that Trump needs this guy to save his own ass, which I'l let others play with, I do not understand the Republican insanity putting this particular conservative on the court, while ignoring the basics of a historical vetting/investigation for a lifetime appointment, with huge responsibilities.

They are going to throw out over 200 years of historical precedence in exercising their duty as an equal partner in government, and remain a balance to the other branches for a drunk prevaricating partisan bully with a nasty temper who might be a sexual predator.

Really?

This asshole is your guy?

[bankshot1]

Anyone watching that day of dueling testimony, knows who was open and honest, credible and poised and who was prevaricating, evasive, belligerent with something to hide.

Well then -

have a nice week.

My bad kid, I should have included the qualifer, "anyone watching with half a functioning  brain"...

I assume once more kid has run to iggy to hide.

But you have a nice week too.