Fragile Bird Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 These titles just write themselves. eta: Just in case you missed the link, that bar Kavanaugh and buds went to and triggered the bar fight, started by Kavanaugh throwing ice/his drink at someone, happened after a UB40 concert. Looking at the You Tube video of Red Red Wine immediately brought to mind the Saturday Night Live skit last weekend where Matt Damon, as Kavanaugh, responds to a drinking question by saying, 'Do you mean was I cool?' How prescient the writers of SNL are is just amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lykos Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 Excellent folow up title. Prince Buster (1967) to Tony Tribe (1969). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 Not just the reggae link, but also the UB40 reference. Well, well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 Excellent title. List of BK proven lies at the hearing: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-lies_us_5bb26190e4b027da00d61fcd In the meantime, speaking of this hideous situation the USA is these days, the book du jour is The Red and the Blue: The 1990s and the Birth of Political Tribalism by Steve Kornacki. I just listened to an interview with the author. PW review here: https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-06-243898-0 As the reply to Ormond went to the other thread just as it was shut down: Ormond believes that BK's course having been withdrawn doesn't mean anything. However it's important to recall how the women of law schools across the land, prestige schools as well as others, united in protest to his nomination BEFORE the hearings. Also it's significant because there are more women enrolled in law school now that men, just as there are more women enrolled in institutions of higher learning than men, and more women than men complete their programs. More and more men are eschewing law and medicine, the professions they've always highly dominated throughout history, in favor of programs that deal with finance in some form, including the tech side of it. BK and the SCOTUS as well as all courts will be dealing with a majority of women as prosecutors and defenders -- that is, of course, if we have any legal system at that has any significance at all within a few years. And now edited to add this, from a Harvard Law School graduate friend (with his permission): Quote ... it just showed up on my news feed. alum and current students pressured the administration to drop him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ned Stark Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 The Rachel Mitchell memo is a decidedly bad look for Dr. Blasey Ford, and I think, for the Democrats in general. I had said earlier it was a virtual he said/she said, but Mitchell claims that it is actually worse than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted October 2, 2018 Author Share Posted October 2, 2018 CNN is reporting that Kavanaugh's people are explaining Kavanaugh was called by the New Yorker and told, or was asked about, the claims that were going to be made against him. His 'people' (White House staff? Support team?) then started calling friends of Kavanaugh to gather support against the claims that were going to be made. This is where the days of practice questions Kavanaugh had at the White House before the Ford hearing are very important. Kavanaugh repeatedly used weasel language to mislead the hearing, carefully structured to avoid perjury charges. I'd have to see the exact wording of his reply to the exposure claim - did he say 'not until I read the New Yorker article' or did he say 'not until the New Yorker story came out'? He could easily say the New Yorker story came out to him when they called about the allegations, while at the same time he could sit at the hearing and suggest it wasn't until the story hit the newsstands and he was blindsided. He didn't say he was blindsided, he just carefully worded his response to suggest he was blindsided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted October 2, 2018 Author Share Posted October 2, 2018 5 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said: The Rachel Mitchell memo is a decidedly bad look for Dr. Blasey Ford, and I think, for the Democrats in general. I had said earlier it was a virtual he said/she said, but Mitchell claims that it is actually worse than that. Maybe to Fox viewers it is. Not to any lawyers or people with a brain. She's a Republican prosecutor hired to shield the Republican old white men Senators from tv commercials showing them asking angry questions to a fragile middle-aged sexual assault victim. No respectable lawyer would put out a report declaring they couldn't prosecute a case without DOING AN INVESTIGATION! ie Talking to other people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 17 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said: The Rachel Mitchell memo is a decidedly bad look for Dr. Blasey Ford, and I think, for the Democrats in general. I had said earlier it was a virtual he said/she said, but Mitchell claims that it is actually worse than that. Jesus Christ you're an easy mark. If Donald Trump served you a glass of his own piss and told you it was scotch, you'd swill it luxuriantly around in your mouth and inquire about the distillery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 29 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said: The Rachel Mitchell memo is a decidedly bad look for Dr. Blasey Ford, and I think, for the Democrats in general. I had said earlier it was a virtual he said/she said, but Mitchell claims that it is actually worse than that. https://theintercept.com/2018/10/02/heres-what-prosecutor-rachel-mitchell-gets-wrong-about-the-evidence-against-brett-kavanaugh/ A few choice points -- but the whole article is worth a read Quote As an initial matter, Mitchell’s memo is, on its face, a one-sided credibility assessment. At no point does she measure Kavanaugh’s credibility against his accuser’s. But when considering a “he said she said” case, the credibility assessment is necessarily relative, not absolute. That Mitchell critiques Ford’s ability to remember events from 36 years prior, while failing to comment on Kavanaugh’s inability to remember attending parties like the one Ford described (even as a similar event was marked on his much ballyhooed calendar) speaks volumes. [..] But the concern here isn’t that Kavanaugh imbibed, used vulgar slang, or made disparaging jokes about the sexual behavior of his female classmates. It’s that because he drank so much, he might not be able to remember, and therefore credibly deny, that he sexually assaulted Ford. It’s that he might have chosen to lie about the commonly understood meaning of “devil’s triangle” — a sex act between two men and a woman — because admitting that he referenced that sex act on his yearbook page, less than a year after he and another boy allegedly assaulted a classmate, would be too damning. No one can say with certainty what happened between 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh and 15-year-old Christine Blasey Ford during the summer of 1982. But what do know with certainty is that Ford’s actions have been broadly consistent with witness statements and available evidence. During her testimony, Ford attempted to answer every question, while Kavanaugh prevaricated. Ford asked for an FBI investigation while Kavanaugh demurred. Ford submitted to a lie detector test, while Kavanaugh lied or stretched the truth about easily confirmed facts, like whether he was of drinking age in 1982, or whether he was a legacy admit at Yale. For these reasons, Kavanaugh is, at best, a bad witness. At worst, he is an attempted rapist. And at minimum, he should be disqualified from being our nation’s highest jurist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ned Stark Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 27 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: Maybe to Fox viewers it is. Not to any lawyers or people with a brain. She's a Republican prosecutor hired to shield the Republican old white men Senators from tv commercials showing them asking angry questions to a fragile middle-aged sexual assault victim. No respectable lawyer would put out a report declaring they couldn't prosecute a case without DOING AN INVESTIGATION! ie Talking to other people! I don’t watch Fox News. I believe I am on record here as stating that an investigation is necessary. That was honestly my reaction after watching the testimony and before Mitchell’s memo. Disregarding all the holes in her story, that’s not a dealbreaker as it did happen thirty something years ago; it was also telling for me the gaps in her knowledge on more current events. As in, her psychiatrist got the incident wrong, no one knows who leaked the information at the 11th hour, or who paid for the polygraph test, but Feinstein was advising her on law firms. Leyland Keyser claiming she never socialized with Kavanaugh. As I said, an investigation is necessary, but I try to look at objectively, not just pick a side and then go from there. Kavanaugh did not come off well, but to me, he did not (at this point, pre-investigation) come across as having sexually assaulted Dr. Blasey Ford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ned Stark Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 37 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: Jesus Christ you're an easy mark. If Donald Trump served you a glass of his own piss and told you it was scotch, you'd swill it luxuriantly around in your mouth and inquire about the distillery. Ah, okay. See above, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ned Stark Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 @Week, will take a look at it. Have some work to do at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonnot OG Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 Lol right wing reactionary easily fooled. Find a more iconic duo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted October 2, 2018 Author Share Posted October 2, 2018 19 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said: I don’t watch Fox News. I believe I am on record here as stating that an investigation is necessary. That was honestly my reaction after watching the testimony and before Mitchell’s memo. Disregarding all the holes in her story, that’s not a dealbreaker as it did happen thirty something years ago; it was also telling for me the gaps in her knowledge on more current events. As in, her psychiatrist got the incident wrong, no one knows who leaked the information at the 11th hour, or who paid for the polygraph test, but Feinstein was advising her on law firms. Leyland Keyser claiming she never socialized with Kavanaugh. As I said, an investigation is necessary, but I try to look at objectively, not just pick a side and then go from there. Kavanaugh did not come off well, but to me, he did not (at this point, pre-investigation) come across as having sexually assaulted Dr. Blasey Ford. Nobody knows who paid for a $300 polygraph test is a strike against her credibility? Really? How about nobody knows who paid off Kavanaugh's debts in 2017 when he was first nominated to the SCOTUS? He owed between $60,000 and $200,000 in debts and they mysteriously vanished by 2018. How about nobody knows who made the down payment on his $1.2 M home in Chevy Chase? The year before he had a net declared worth of $90,000, that included only $10,000 in the bank, the rest in a retirement fund, and $25,000 in debts, yet he came up with a $245,000 down payment and got a million dollar mortgage. Mortgage lenders were crazy in 2006, yes, but where did the $245,000 down payment come from? Does that affect how credible you think his testimony is? How does the fact that no one knows who leaked her letter affect her credibility? The office of Feinstein, I can understand, but of Ford? Leland Keyser said she doesn't remember being at a party that Kavanaugh attended. Who said she 'socialized' with Kavanaugh? Did someone say she met Kavanaugh for milk and cookies on Saturday afternoons? Ford lives in California. Feinstein has been a Senator in Washington, meeting members of the legal profession in the halls of power for how many decades? Why shouldn't Feinstein advise Ford about law firms? How does this affect Ford's credibility? Who should she have asked, the Republicans? Her neighbours in Palo Alto? And, you know, or should if you've been reading posts, this is not a criminal trial, this is an issue of credibility. The standard of proof is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt', the standard is more like 'balance of probabilities'. Was Dr. Ford credible. But of course, because you don't know who paid for the polygraph test and she got advice about law firms her story's a lie, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 11 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: Nobody knows who paid for a $300 polygraph test is a strike against her credibility? Really? How about nobody knows who paid off Kavanaugh's debts in 2017 when he was first nominated to the SCOTUS? He owed between $60,000 and $200,000 in debts and they mysteriously vanished by 2018. How about nobody knows who made the down payment on his $1.2 M home in Chevy Chase? The year before he had a net declared worth of $90,000, that included only $10,000 in the bank, the rest in a retirement fund, and $25,000 in debts, yet he came up with a $245,000 down payment and got a million dollar mortgage. Mortgage lenders were crazy in 2006, yes, but where did the $245,000 down payment come from? Does that affect how credible you think his testimony is? How does the fact that no one knows who leaked her letter affect her credibility? The office of Feinstein, I can understand, but of Ford? Leland Keyser said she doesn't remember being at a party that Kavanaugh attended. Who said she 'socialized' with Kavanaugh? Did someone say she met Kavanaugh for milk and cookies on Saturday afternoons? Ford lives in California. Feinstein has been a Senator in Washington, meeting members of the legal profession in the halls of power for how many decades? Why shouldn't Feinstein advise Ford about law firms? How does this affect Ford's credibility? Who should she have asked, the Republicans? Her neighbours in Palo Alto? And, you know, or should if you've been reading posts, this is not a criminal trial, this is an issue of credibility. The standard of proof is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt', the standard is more like 'balance of probabilities'. Was Dr. Ford credible. But of course, because you don't know who paid for the polygraph test and she got advice about law firms her story's a lie, right? Certain ilks of white men are hysterically determined to believe that their white guy could not do such a thing! Shocked! Shocked! Shocked! that this total legacy of white male privilege could possibly even be thought to do such a thing -- much less, provenly, recorded, on the recorded record, accessible and known to all!, LIE ABOUT EVERYTHING, past, present and future, WHILE UNDER OATH -- while whining, crying and howling, coz you know, he's a privileged white man and hurting that this thing is happening to him, making his life miserable. While the only thing that matters regarding the woman in / on question, that she never ever show the least bit of anger, or raise her voice, or cry, and be told over and over that she's crazy, mistaken, a pawn, a conspirator. And nobody cares a shyte that she's a woman whose life has been made miserable. We can only care that a white man is hurting, not about the people he hurt, who, now expressing that they don't like it, are HURTING HIM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 56 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said: Disregarding all the holes in her story, that’s not a dealbreaker as it did happen thirty something years ago; it was also telling for me the gaps in her knowledge on more current events. As in, her psychiatrist got the incident wrong, no one knows who leaked the information at the 11th hour, or who paid for the polygraph test, but Feinstein was advising her on law firms. Leyland Keyser claiming she never socialized with Kavanaugh. Everyone knows who paid for the polygraph test. Her lawyers. One of them literally testified to it last Thursday when this bullshit issue was raised. Maybe you should review this testimony and doing so may alleviate your other bullshit claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lykos Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 6 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: Nobody knows who paid for a $300 polygraph test is a strike against her credibility? Really? 'Let me put an end to this...' If you want to call that into question, you'll have to ask who paid the lawyers, looking at the pictures (product placement) I'd say Coca Cola, but what does it matter? If it's not legitimate too seek financial aid from interested parties to help you presenting your case of being wronged by a person seeking a public office for life, that will have serious implications on people seeking justice in similar cases in the future, I think the US political system has been operating illegitimately for centuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 2 hours ago, King Ned Stark said: The Rachel Mitchell memo is a decidedly bad look for Dr. Blasey Ford, and I think, for the Democrats in general. I had said earlier it was a virtual he said/she said, but Mitchell claims that it is actually worse than that. That memo is (apparently badly) based on standards that aren't actually relevant for this job interview. There might not be enough evidence (based solely on the hearing) to convict Kavanaugh beyond any reasonable doubt (the standard even an unbiased prosecutor would go for). That does not mean that the quality of the witness interview wasn't good enough to cast reasonable doubts on Kavanaugh's behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Ned Stark Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 I know this isn’t a trial, my belief however, is that if he didn’t break any law (not his temperament or he drank in high school), then vote on him and be done with. What’s wrong with voting on his nomination at weeks end if the FBI investigation does nothing to further the claims of sexual assasult? @Bonnot OG, @DanteGabriel, @DMC, talking tough on an anonymous Internet forum doesn’t make you tough, it makes you sound foolish. I watched an hour of testimony and read a 5 page memo one time. I’m sure there are things I missed or am flat out wrong about. It’s my opinion, that she is not credible in making an allegation stick that Kavanaugh broke the law. Have the investigation, barring any further evidence of wrongdoing, then vote him in or out by the normal procedures of the Supreme Court. Is it about right and wrong, or is it about the hope that delaying and then scrubbing Kavanaugh will push any further nominee under the scrutiny of a democrat led senate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serious Callers Only Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 Anyway, besides the faux concern trolling going on in this thread, apparently another right wing terrorist 'accidentally' mowed down a governor candidate and some pro-union protesters some hours ago. https://www.newsweek.com/multiple-protestors-truck-crash-michigan-1149150 Like terrorists do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.