What's new
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 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Seems we'll be allowed to investigate further than the FBI will.

So no time to waste! I'll press on a bit as I like a good mystery. I should probably move this to conspiracy theories, but here's a fairly good theory about where the house in question was:

The personal connection between Ford and Judge and Kavanaugh is "Squi". "Squi" is Chris Garrett, a classmate and good friend of Kavanaugh's that Kavanaugh hung out with several times according to his calendar. It came out in Ford's testimony, in a rather confusing part, that Ford dated, or "went with" Garrett for some months circa the summer of 1982. Ford very definitely did not want to bring out Garrett's name, and didn't, which is what made it confusing, but Garret is the person she refers to. He is also the guy that idiot Ed Whelan publicly accused, which was so stupid it defies description.

However, it remains a fact that Garrett's house is only about 8 blocks from Columbia CC, and it does in fact fit the few other details that Ford supplies in terms of layout. (Timmy's house is not only far away, it's a Townhouse, which doesn't really fit, for example.) Ford dating Garret establishes a reason for Ford and Leland Keyser being there. Leland was 13 or possibly 14 at the time. (Keyser is 49 now, Ford 51, Kavanaugh and Judge, 53) and it's difficult to see a good reason for Leland being there, or Ford herself being at a "small gathering" with PJ, Judge, and Kavanaugh, older boys from a different school, unless there's some personal connection between them. It's a bit of an odd "small gathering" otherwise.)

The most logical thing so far is that the house in question was Squi's house. It explains why this group was all there together, and it is definitely near Columbia CC. So Ford walks from Columbia to Garrett's, who she's being "going with". When Ford leaves, she walks back to Columbia and gets a ride from someone the ten miles back to her own home. Ford says she is is at Columbia nearly every day, so that would explain why no one would remember giving her a ride. No one picked up a distraught girl on the street, in other words, and none of those at the party gave her a ride home. Perhaps she even goes home with her parents who are big wheels at Columbia and there all the time, or she just calls them like she usually does and any 15 year old typically does.

That the house in question is, in fact, Chris "Squi" Garrett's fits very well and answers several questions about Ford's testimony.
 
Good point--you are exactly right that others in the queue behind him will be as or more "conservative." The thing that made me most uncomfortable about K prior to the hearings (and the reason I think Trump picked him) not his history on Roe issues but his position on the imperial powers of the Presidency. It's what Trump desperately wants and we can least afford at this time. Since Thursday, it's also clear he has nowhere near the temperament necessary to preform the job with any level of objectivity.

I hope this process opens some eyes to what is happening and motivates people to get to the polls in November.

My fears of him as well. With the case coming up about being able to try the same charges in both state and federal court, Red Don might be able to get his pardons on as well, and succeed in covering his doughy as.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Yes they need Brett seated for gamble vs the US, so dump can truly pardon everyone
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Ok, so if it is Squee's house, Kavanaugh denies ever knowing Ford, didn't run in the same social circles. He spent more time with Squee that July than any of his other friends.

It strains credibility that Kavanaugh had never met or hung out with the girl that Squee was seeing for a couple months.

So she's at Squee's.A drunken Kav, Judge and PJ leave Timmy's and stop by Squee's. Possible. Why she can't remember it was Squee's, or refuses to say it was, I don't know. Kavanaugh seems to know it was, hence the Whelan smear.

Hope FBI is gonna interview Squee.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

To be perfectly honest I think some of my optimism is I am worn out on this crap and need a couple days to decompress. I will reassess tomorrow.
 
A conservative is in the supreme court - whether Kavanaugh is better or worse than another conservative alternative is unknown.
As Thurgood Marshall said when asked if Bush should appoint a black justice to replace him, "There's no difference between a white snake and a black snake. They'll both bite."
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

I honestly hope Kimberly Strassel never gets harassed, or attacked. Honestly.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Handy mentioned last week the FBI is much better at interviewing than some Senate hearing. FBI interviews are ongoing. Wouldn't the FBI start with interviewing the accusers to know where to start looking? Dr Ford, who wanted anonymity, will get the exact opposite all in a week: a televised Senate hearing and a chat with the FBI to go over some details so they know where to start looking.

Next, the scope limitation seemed to be negotiated (most likely with the Sen from CT) by Sen Flake before his vote in Committee. He seemed to spell it out then. Trump's initial directive seemed to follow what Flake (clumsily) presented to the Committee. Now if Trump has since opened up the scope with his Tweets, might that be Trump looking to overboard someone, or is that Trump looking to say "they looked everywhere, I took off the restrictions".
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

A conservative is in the supreme court - whether Kavanaugh is better or worse than another conservative alternative is unknown.

The primary goal of the coming week is the impact on public opinion for midterms in general and the senate in particular.

The public opinion that the left is just a bunch of obstructionists that don't actually care about the topics they're spouting, but rather using them as weapons?
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

The primary goal of the coming week is the impact on public opinion for midterms in general and the senate in particular.

And you must admit, it is a bit of a gambit. If the FBI comes back with "we can substantiate none of the claims beyond what the Committee already has" it won't be a good look. If the FBI comes back with corroboration that's a whole new world.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Handy mentioned last week the FBI is much better at interviewing than some Senate hearing. FBI interviews are ongoing. Wouldn't the FBI start with interviewing the accusers to know where to start looking? Dr Ford, who wanted anonymity, will get the exact opposite all in a week: a televised Senate hearing and a chat with the FBI to go over some details so they know where to start looking.

Next, the scope limitation seemed to be negotiated (most likely with the Sen from CT) by Sen Flake before his vote in Committee. He seemed to spell it out then. Trump's initial directive seemed to follow what Flake (clumsily) presented to the Committee. Now if Trump has since opened up the scope with his Tweets, might that be Trump looking to overboard someone, or is that Trump looking to say "they looked everywhere, I took off the restrictions".

They might be better at interviewing, but if the Democrats actually cared, don't you think they'd have questions in mind about the situation that they'd actually want to ask in order to shape a theoretically undecided opinion? She would have had the FBI investigation either way. The only difference is, had her anonymity stuck, it would have been under closed session.

The scope is the only reason Flake isn't being completely lynched by the right, as much as there are some terms going around. Without the scope, the left would be free to roll out another 5 or 6 people (which they'll probably still do, not like they're trying too hard as they didn't even bother to come up with a name on the 4th), which would result in ad infinitum obstruction. The Republicans put themselves between a rock and a hard place by giving any sort of inch to the contradictory accuser, and the left is correct that the right needs to finish what they started.

Was Dr. Ford abused? Probably was. However, could she be associating it with Kavanaugh? When you have troubled moments in your life, they can flash back when something (even a little thing) happens to you in the moment, resulting in "transference", something Sigmund Freud admits exists. In addition, there's the "Fregoli delusion", where you could see a feature of someone or something and immediately make you associate it with a troubled moment. If you ever hear a single woman say that she doesn't want a suitor because it reminds her of her ex-boyfriend in looks, that's an example. It's possible she suffers from both.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

And you must admit, it is a bit of a gambit. If the FBI comes back with "we can substantiate none of the claims beyond what the Committee already has" it won't be a good look. If the FBI comes back with corroboration that's a whole new world.

FBI doesn't reach conclusions normally. They just report what was said, and allows the jury (in this case the Senate) to put two and two together in order to find out for themselves. That being said, ever since Comey's treatment of Hillary Clinton and the e-mails, the FBI has brought themselves into the business of drawing conclusions, which is likely why the left wants this. Since that precedent, they believe Wray will come back with a "he did it".
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

And you must admit, it is a bit of a gambit. If the FBI comes back with "we can substantiate none of the claims beyond what the Committee already has" it won't be a good look. If the FBI comes back with corroboration that's a whole new world.


Well, I can free a caged bird and see if it flies. But if I clip its wings it’s not really a choice of the bird is it?
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Well, I can free a caged bird and see if it flies. But if I clip its wings it’s not really a choice of the bird is it?

Wouldn't that blame be on the deal that Sen Flake (and most likely Sen Coons) negotiated?
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

FBI doesn't reach conclusions normally. They just report what was said, and allows the jury (in this case the Senate) to put two and two together in order to find out for themselves. That being said, ever since Comey's treatment of Hillary Clinton and the e-mails, the FBI has brought themselves into the business of drawing conclusions, which is likely why the left wants this. Since that precedent, they believe Wray will come back with a "he did it".

I'm not saying the FBI may come back with having reached a conclusion. However, I could see the FBI coming back with a finding that they have nothing more to report beyond what the Committee already has: no new findings, no new statements, no new information.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Dr Ford, who wanted anonymity, will get the exact opposite all in a week: a televised Senate hearing and a chat with the FBI to go over some details so they know where to start looking.

What is it you're trying to say with this? Isn't it possible that sometime ago she wanted to just forget all about this? Then she realized she had some sort of a duty to share what happened, because if it happened the way she said it, Kavanaugh certainly doesn't belong in any courtroom except as a defendant? And eventually she realized that a full statement and being open to questioning was the only fair way to go about this?

One of the weakest things about the right wing in today's world is a complete unwillingness to change your mind or seeing someone else do it as being a sign of weakness. Unless of course changing your mind for hypocrisy's sake is why it happens, then your average snowflake republican can do it in a heartbeat. That's why most of them will vote for a child molester if he's got an "r" next to his name.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top