USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?
- Thread starter Handyman
- Start date
- Status
rufus
rock and roller
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?
Murkowski says already he's a no. Collins is playing wishy washy, but everything she says indicates that nothing will stop her from voting yes. I mean, she wanted to put the woman under cross-examination.
Murkowski says already he's a no. Collins is playing wishy washy, but everything she says indicates that nothing will stop her from voting yes. I mean, she wanted to put the woman under cross-examination.
Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?
I'm not sure the idea that Ford can't be ready, isn't ready, or is just plain reluctant to testify on Monday can be entirely spun onto the R's plate. The offer to go to her, or to send staff to interview her privately if she doesn't want to speak to Senators has apparently been made. Seems Ford doesn't want to testify at all, unless perhaps someone can corroborate her story, which so far apparently hasn't happened. Kavanaugh, Judge, and a third person Ford named as being at the party have all essentially denied it and also supported Kavanaugh's character publicy. I certainly don't blame her for not wanting to testify, it makes sense she doesn't want to be subjected to a "she said, they said" inquiry even if we accept her accusation vs. Kavanaugh as being entirely true and accurate.
We know Ford had already decided she didn't want to come forward publicly at all, let alone testify before the Senate, as she told Feinstein as much in late August. Despite this, some two weeks later, on Sept. 12, Feinstein decided to share the contents of Ford's letter with Democrats on the Judiciary committee. (but not the actual letter itself.) The existence of the letter, most of the details in it, and much about the identity of the author were almost immediately leaked by D's on the Judiciary committee or their staff. We know that because a story with most of the details appeared in the Intercept later that very same day. The next day, Feinstein made the existence of the now already mostly pubic letter, public, and then forwarded it to Justice. Three days later Ford came forward, but only after having been outed by leaks and having been contacted by several reporters and the Washington Post. Probably in a "we know it's you, and we want to give you a chance to comment before we go to press" kind of call. Seems clear D's leaked Ford's identity against Ford's explicit wishes, and helped put her in the very position she specifically asked not to be put in.
I'm not sure the idea that Ford can't be ready, isn't ready, or is just plain reluctant to testify on Monday can be entirely spun onto the R's plate. The offer to go to her, or to send staff to interview her privately if she doesn't want to speak to Senators has apparently been made. Seems Ford doesn't want to testify at all, unless perhaps someone can corroborate her story, which so far apparently hasn't happened. Kavanaugh, Judge, and a third person Ford named as being at the party have all essentially denied it and also supported Kavanaugh's character publicy. I certainly don't blame her for not wanting to testify, it makes sense she doesn't want to be subjected to a "she said, they said" inquiry even if we accept her accusation vs. Kavanaugh as being entirely true and accurate.
We know Ford had already decided she didn't want to come forward publicly at all, let alone testify before the Senate, as she told Feinstein as much in late August. Despite this, some two weeks later, on Sept. 12, Feinstein decided to share the contents of Ford's letter with Democrats on the Judiciary committee. (but not the actual letter itself.) The existence of the letter, most of the details in it, and much about the identity of the author were almost immediately leaked by D's on the Judiciary committee or their staff. We know that because a story with most of the details appeared in the Intercept later that very same day. The next day, Feinstein made the existence of the now already mostly pubic letter, public, and then forwarded it to Justice. Three days later Ford came forward, but only after having been outed by leaks and having been contacted by several reporters and the Washington Post. Probably in a "we know it's you, and we want to give you a chance to comment before we go to press" kind of call. Seems clear D's leaked Ford's identity against Ford's explicit wishes, and helped put her in the very position she specifically asked not to be put in.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?
We all have our trainwrecks. Kepler has The Bachelor, I have FreeRepublic.
We all have our trainwrecks. Kepler has The Bachelor, I have FreeRepublic.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?
My fear is that we are migrating from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent"; but, it's worse, as it seems in a #MeToo world it's "guilty upon accusation", with certain exceptions*.
*See: MN AG candidate Ellison
My fear is that we are migrating from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent"; but, it's worse, as it seems in a #MeToo world it's "guilty upon accusation", with certain exceptions*.
*See: MN AG candidate Ellison
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?
Honestly, what can the FBI do?
She has an accusation with no recollection of specific date, time, and place, just a name (or two, or four).
Strictly looking at it from a Special Agent's POV (and I talked with a retired female FBI SA yesterday), how would the FBI begin to run that down? They'd write up the accusation, they'd interview the named and get statements, and ... file it in a drawer somewhere?
Honestly, what can the FBI do?
She has an accusation with no recollection of specific date, time, and place, just a name (or two, or four).
Strictly looking at it from a Special Agent's POV (and I talked with a retired female FBI SA yesterday), how would the FBI begin to run that down? They'd write up the accusation, they'd interview the named and get statements, and ... file it in a drawer somewhere?
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?
Your concern for those poor, confused FBI agents is noted. Thanks for that.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?
Thanks for admitting there's not much the FBI can do but write up the accusation, do a couple interviews, and file the docs in a drawer. They'll get the same clarity the Senate will in their interviews.
Thanks for admitting there's not much the FBI can do but write up the accusation, do a couple interviews, and file the docs in a drawer. They'll get the same clarity the Senate will in their interviews.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?
Does the FBI need a nookie to go with their Baabaa?
Does the FBI need a nookie to go with their Baabaa?
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?
Yeah, you would never assign guilt without first going through an actual trial
The court of public opinion has always assigned guilt prematurely, nothing has changed.
Yeah, you would never assign guilt without first going through an actual trial
The court of public opinion has always assigned guilt prematurely, nothing has changed.
rufus
rock and roller
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.
If the Repubs were serious about hearing her story, why did they schedule the hearing before even contacting here? Why limit to only two people appearing? Why does Lindsey Graham say "All I can say is that we’re bringing this to a close. This has been a drive-by shooting when it comes to Kavanaugh. . . . I’ll listen to the lady, but we’re going to bring this to a close,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Why does the staffer for Grassley in charge of vetting judicial appointments post this on twitter?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Clearly, Grassley and his Judiciary Committee staff have set the ground rules for Monday's hearing with a fully open mind, eager to make a good-faith effort to hear new evidence and testimony, with no preconceptions. <a href="https://t.co/rGCs2XhVWZ">pic.twitter.com/rGCs2XhVWZ</a></p>— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1042737365389897728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Why are they so intent on rushing this thing to a close? Why have we seen only a small percentage of his work product, as other justice nominations have been required to present? What are they hiding? They wouldn't even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland, but this has to be done and dusted by the end of the month? What's the hurry? Shouldn't time be taken to determine what the truth actually is, what his record is? No, they haven't already made up their minds, or nothing...………..
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.
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.
If the Repubs were serious about hearing her story, why did they schedule the hearing before even contacting here? Why limit to only two people appearing? Why does Lindsey Graham say "All I can say is that we’re bringing this to a close. This has been a drive-by shooting when it comes to Kavanaugh. . . . I’ll listen to the lady, but we’re going to bring this to a close,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Why does the staffer for Grassley in charge of vetting judicial appointments post this on twitter?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Clearly, Grassley and his Judiciary Committee staff have set the ground rules for Monday's hearing with a fully open mind, eager to make a good-faith effort to hear new evidence and testimony, with no preconceptions. <a href="https://t.co/rGCs2XhVWZ">pic.twitter.com/rGCs2XhVWZ</a></p>— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1042737365389897728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Why are they so intent on rushing this thing to a close? Why have we seen only a small percentage of his work product, as other justice nominations have been required to present? What are they hiding? They wouldn't even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland, but this has to be done and dusted by the end of the month? What's the hurry? Shouldn't time be taken to determine what the truth actually is, what his record is? No, they haven't already made up their minds, or nothing...………..
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.
Last edited:
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
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.
Yeah, you would never assign guilt without first going through an actual trial
I'm wondering why Ellison isn't facing being DQ'd as MN AG when facing similar accusations. But ... Minnesota.
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?
Yes, because apparently it would never occur to the FBI, after having been commissioned to perform an investigation by Congress (or the President) to file a formal report with that commissioning authority. They'd just stick it in a drawer, next to their juice boxes and teething rings.
rufus
rock and roller
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?
Oh, I dunno, like maybe interview people from both their schools if they ever heard anything about something like this happening? Did Kavanaugh have a habit of getting rip-roaring drunk at parties? You know, in Judge's memoir about his prep-school drinking days there was a character named "Bart O'Kavanaugh" who got drunk, puked in, and then passed out in a car. But I'm sure that's just coincidence, no one ever saw Brett Kavanaugh like that. Had anyone ever heard of him forcing himself aggressively on other girls?
You know, investigate.
Oh, I dunno, like maybe interview people from both their schools if they ever heard anything about something like this happening? Did Kavanaugh have a habit of getting rip-roaring drunk at parties? You know, in Judge's memoir about his prep-school drinking days there was a character named "Bart O'Kavanaugh" who got drunk, puked in, and then passed out in a car. But I'm sure that's just coincidence, no one ever saw Brett Kavanaugh like that. Had anyone ever heard of him forcing himself aggressively on other girls?
You know, investigate.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?
I'm wondering the same thing and I can tell you I am NOT A HAPPY CAMPER right now about it.
I'm wondering the same thing and I can tell you I am NOT A HAPPY CAMPER right now about it.
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.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?
True. But do you really expect me to vote for the Republican ****tard? And I won't leave it blank. And I won't vote 3rd party. Making me sick to be honest with you.
True. But do you really expect me to vote for the Republican ****tard? And I won't leave it blank. And I won't vote 3rd party. Making me sick to be honest with you.
I think we can all agree there isn’t enough investigating going on right now.
D
Deleted member 3166
Guest
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.
Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?
The most pragmatic answer seems to be that there are a bunch of cases coming next session that they want to win. Without Kav on board 4/4 goes back to lower court decision.
The rush doesn't make sense for any other reason to me because they would still seat a conservative even losing control of the senate which is unlikely.
The most pragmatic answer seems to be that there are a bunch of cases coming next session that they want to win. Without Kav on board 4/4 goes back to lower court decision.
The rush doesn't make sense for any other reason to me because they would still seat a conservative even losing control of the senate which is unlikely.
- Status