Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

What do you think the upcoming election is if not voters deciding if he should dq'd over the allegations?

Also, not a lifetime appointment.

Lol exactly. Voters can speak their mind shortly. Kavanaugh is being forced on us for a lifetime

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

That's on you then.
He shouldn't have to be DQ'd to make you feel better or absolve you of responsibility in making a choice.

It's not entirely on me. It's not my fault the entire Republican Party is a corrupt cult.

 

[Deleted member 3166]

It's not entirely on me. It's not my fault the entire Republican Party is a corrupt cult.

Your voting choice is entirely on you.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Your voting choice is entirely on you.

Yeah, whatever. Miss the larger point. I think I am going to consider leaving it blank. Which is really ****ing me off.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Yeah, whatever. Miss the larger point. I think I am going to consider leaving it blank. Which is really ****ing me off.

Not going to be a fun decision. Guy accused of abuse or card carrying member of the Christian Taliban.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

I'm wondering why Ellison isn't facing being DQ'd as MN AG when facing similar accusations. But ... Minnesota.

I think that has to do with a very sticky situation presented. The woman never came forward, her son did. She was contacted, said that her son's statements were true, that a video exists of the abuse, but she refuses to present it to either the authorities or to allow any member of the press to view it. Ellison, of course, is claiming that no such video exists because no such incident ever took place. This is an issue only two years old, and she's willing to talk about it but not press charges while claiming she has video evidence of the event. This is extremely troubling in terms of lending credence to her claims.


https://www.minnpost.com/glean/2018/08/rep-keith-ellison-denies-domestic-violence-allegations/

 

[unofan]

Juveniles do a lot of stupid things, especially when alcohol is involved. That's why in most states they are punished differently, with the punishment frequently ending when minority status does. But that should disqualify you for a job thirty years later?

I'll admit, this is a special job, and for certain positions you maybe should be beyond reproach. But I didn't make an automatic assumption it should be a disqualifier when I heard what he was accused of, including when and the context. Just like I didn't think the accusations against Franken should automatically disqualify him for the Senate job.

(Alleged) Attempted forcible gang rape (the friend was there helping hold her down) is not just "boys will be boys." It shouldn't disqualify you from all employment, but given that there hundreds of otherwise qualified attorneys for a very public and forward facing job, yes it would disqualify him from this specific job.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Murkowski says already he's a no.

Source? I haven’t seen anything from our Senator beyond typical wishy washy stuff.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

I'm wondering why Ellison isn't facing being DQ'd as MN AG when facing similar accusations. But ... Minnesota.

He is of the magic religion.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

God, you drink the Koolaid heavily.

First, I'd like to see your source as to the offer to go to her and interview her privately.


Second, the reason Feinstein revealed the contents of the letter is exactly article appearance. The news was already going to come out, so she informed the rest of the committee. I'd also like to see your evidence that it was Democrats and staffers on the committee who leaked it.


As for corroboration of her story, I guess you missed her classmate who said that at the time there was gossip floating around her school about this happening.

1.) That the offer to interview her privately in CA or have her testify privately was made has been reported by CNN NYT WaPo NPR NBC CBS ABC... perhaps not by media matters though.

2.) Information about the letter was reported in the press on September 12th. The same day Feinstein et al. say that information about the letter was first shared with D members of the Judiciary committee. Not anybody else. Prior to that, Ford, Feinstein and her staff, and CA Rep Anna Eshoo(D) and staff were the only ones that had access to the letter or knew of it's existence. Ford had asked for and been given assurances of confidentiality. Given that, how do you propose that the info came out from some source other than D's and/or their staffs on the 12th, a day prior to Feinstein distributing it to Justice or anyone else on the 13th?

3.) Ford's classmate has deleted her story and changed her statements.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

I think that has to do with a very sticky situation presented. The woman never came forward, her son did. She was contacted, said that her son's statements were true, that a video exists of the abuse, but she refuses to present it to either the authorities or to allow any member of the press to view it. Ellison, of course, is claiming that no such video exists because no such incident ever took place. This is an issue only two years old, and she's willing to talk about it but not press charges while claiming she has video evidence of the event. This is extremely troubling in terms of lending credence to her claims.


https://www.minnpost.com/glean/2018/08/rep-keith-ellison-denies-domestic-violence-allegations/

Well she supposedly had video evidence but then it all immediately got hacked or whatever.

Of course the situation is nothing like Kavanaugh's where the accuser brought this up to her therapist six years ago and (unless that part turns out to be a lie) probably didn't just bring that up just in case Kavanaugh became a SC justice 6 years later as part of some big conspiracy.

3.) Ford's classmate has deleted her story and changed her statements.

She never claimed to have first hand knowledge so that doesn't really change anything.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

1.) That the offer to interview her privately in CA or have her testify privately was made has been reported by CNN NYT WaPo NPR NBC CBS ABC... perhaps not by media matters though.

2.) Information about the letter was reported in the press on September 12th. The same day Feinstein et al. say that information about the letter was first shared with D members of the Judiciary committee. Not anybody else. Prior to that, Ford, Feinstein and her staff, and CA Rep Anna Eshoo(D) and staff were the only ones that had access to the letter or knew of it's existence. Ford had asked for and been given assurances of confidentiality. Given that, how do you propose that the info came out from some source other than D's and/or their staffs on the 12th, a day prior to Feinstein distributing it to Justice or anyone else on the 13th?

3.) Ford's classmate has deleted her story and changed her statements.

2) How did Rs know they needed a letter of support from 65 women from his past ready to go? Seems they had knowledge of SOMETHING ahead of time, so I propose that is just as likely as your scenario given the lack of actual information.

3) Kind of but not really. She only changed her story for the slow kids in the room. I think the rest of us were able to understand that she "knew" it happened, but didn't KNOW it happened. Her story was pretty clear to people able to form rational thoughts that based on the hearsay going around the school she trusted that it had happened, not that she witnessed it or had any actual proof it happened.

 

[burd]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Because he's not being honest about it if it happened. If she's credible then he's lying.

There you go. If she is credible, his lie is more of an issue than the act itself. Republicans impeach sitting presidents for such things.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

2) How did Rs know they needed a letter of support from 65 women from his past ready to go? Seems they had knowledge of SOMETHING ahead of time, so I propose that is just as likely as your scenario given the lack of actual information.

3) Kind of but not really. She only changed her story for the slow kids in the room. I think the rest of us were able to understand that she "knew" it happened, but didn't KNOW it happened. Her story was pretty clear to people able to form rational thoughts that based on the hearsay going around the school she trusted that it had happened, not that she witnessed it or had any actual proof it happened.

No, she changed her story because her bluff was called. The left is using women's lib as a weapon to say "J'accuse" because they know it means conviction without trial in the court of public opinion. And now they're so desperate that they've made the tactic blatantly obvious, so people still with a brain smell the rat.

 

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Source? I haven’t seen anything from our Senator beyond typical wishy washy stuff.

Sorry, my bed, I just scanned the headline quickly. It was McKaskill.

 

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

1.) That the offer to interview her privately in CA or have her testify privately was made has been reported by CNN NYT WaPo NPR NBC CBS ABC... perhaps not by media matters though.

2.) Information about the letter was reported in the press on September 12th. The same day Feinstein et al. say that information about the letter was first shared with D members of the Judiciary committee. Not anybody else. Prior to that, Ford, Feinstein and her staff, and CA Rep Anna Eshoo(D) and staff were the only ones that had access to the letter or knew of it's existence. Ford had asked for and been given assurances of confidentiality. Given that, how do you propose that the info came out from some source other than D's and/or their staffs on the 12th, a day prior to Feinstein distributing it to Justice or anyone else on the 13th?

3.) Ford's classmate has deleted her story and changed her statements.

Yeah, the Repub members of the committee have said that. Sorry if I don't take them at their word.

Changed her story, maybe not really. Clarified might be a better term. She had originally said she didn't have first hand knowledge that it happened, just that it was going around the school.

Like when Kavanaugh says he was never at that party, 35 years ago, when Ford never said what day, month, or where it was held, and Kavanaugh "clarifies" that he was never at a party where stuff like that happened.

I dunno, maybe Ford let it out. Maybe one of her friends or classmates that knew about it. You can't just assume it was Democrats without any evidence. Well, most people can't, I'm sure you're fine with it.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NEW: Lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford have told Senate Judiciary Committee staff she is "prepared to testify" next week -- but not Monday -- so long as her safety is assured and hearing is fair. My latest. <a href="https://t.co/WiA3kXb2d8">https://t.co/WiA3kXb2d8</a></p>— Sheryl Gay Stolberg (@SherylNYT) <a href="https://twitter.com/SherylNYT/status/1042847110050340877?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

There you go. If she is credible, his lie is more of an issue than the act itself. Republicans impeach sitting presidents for such things.

It wouldn't be the first lie he's offered up during this, or his previous confirmation hearings.

 

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

No, she changed her story because her bluff was called. The left is using women's lib as a weapon to say "J'accuse" because they know it means conviction without trial in the court of public opinion. And now they're so desperate that they've made the tactic blatantly obvious, so people still with a brain smell the rat.

But you don't smell anything.

 

[rufus]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Staff contacted Mark Judge and obtained a statement under penalty of felony. Staff contacted third person allegedly at party described by Dr. Ford and obtained a statement under penalty of felony. Staff contacted fourth person allegedly at party.</p>— Senate Judiciary (@senjudiciary) <a href="https://twitter.com/senjudiciary/status/1042825426769461249?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


But Judge didn't have to testify, cause Lindsey said he had already said everything he was going to say. And where did they get the names of these people who were at this party? The one on that day and date and at that place that no one has been able to specify? The one that Ford has said nothing about, nor who else might have been there besides Kavanaugh and Judge?


The one that Kavanaugh says he was never at, so how could he know who else was there, how could he provide names? The one that Judge says nothing like that ever happened at, so how does he know who was there, how could he provide names? The party that Republican supporters claim never happened? And yet, somehow, they have the names of people who attended this non-existent party.


But yeah, the Republicans honestly and sincerely want to hear her story and find out exactly what happened at this unspecified location, date and time some 35 years ago.