Current Events > In a week when the FBI says they haven't found anything

(+) Yeah! (+)

Anteaterking posted...

If you actually look at the Vox article, they code "I don't know" or "I don't recall" as answering a question (for both of them).

ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING

(Not)
---

Bio1590 posted...

Funbazooka posted...

Bio1590 posted...

Oh boy Funbazooka's back to bolding random parts of posts again

Bolding every part where Ford doesn't or can't answer a question.

Bio1590 posted...

Also what are the odds he's totally misrepresenting what's being considered an "answer" here lmfao

Copied and pasted. It's not like I'm interjecting with my own commentary.
---

Funbazooka posted...

Point is, Vox is full of shit.

Lmao trying to defend yourself with "I'm just copying and pasting" and then editing your post when it's clear you're doing exactly what I said you are.
---

Bio1590 posted...

Funbazooka posted...

Point is, Vox is full of shit.

Lmao trying to defend yourself with "I'm just copying and pasting" and then editing your post when it's clear you're doing exactly what I said you are.

He's pasting and adding emphasis when relevant...

Your problem is that Funbazooka is a disingenuous poster with no understanding of what is going on.
---

Saying "I don't remember" or "I don't recall" is technically "answering" legally speaking but we all know it's not really an answer far as public opinion goes.

Saying "I don't recall" is a way to protect oneself from perjury. Unless say, they had already answered affirmatively... but this is the first time anyone has cross-examined Ford.
---

What's wrong with the pic if "i don't know" counts as an answer for both?
---

Funbazooka posted...

Saying "I don't remember" or "I don't recall" is technically "answering" legally speaking but we all know it's not really an answer far as public opinion goes.

Saying "I don't recall" is a way to protect oneself from perjury. Unless say, they had already answered... but this is the first time anyone has cross-examined Ford.

So you admit it's actually an answer, for both of them.
---

rikasa posted...

What's wrong with the pic if "i don't know" counts as an answer for both?

Because it "misrepresents the situation" as if Kavanaugh's wouldn't just look three times worse than it already does.
---

TheKentster posted...

Saying you don't know is apparently a valid answer for Ford but not for Kav. Interesting.

Truthfully answering that you don't know is leagues better than hemming, hawing, and babbling like Kavanaugh does every time he gets asked a question.

Not that someone like you is interested in the truth. You're just here to push a gimmick agenda.

Funbazooka posted...

Point is, Vox is full of shit.

Nah. Unless you're now positing that "feels > reals," their data is verifiable and quantifiable. You sound like an anti-vaxxer here.

Bio1590 posted...

Funbazooka posted...

Saying "I don't remember" or "I don't recall" is technically "answering" legally speaking but we all know it's not really an answer far as public opinion goes.

Saying "I don't recall" is a way to protect oneself from perjury. Unless say, they had already answered... but this is the first time anyone has cross-examined Ford.

So you admit it's actually an answer, for both of them.

It's not a criminal trial though.
---

_Rinku_ posted...

Not that someone like you is interested in the truth. You're just here to push a gimmick agenda.

I'm entirely interested in the truth. I spent much of yesterday posting very seriously on this issue. Go ahead and find my other posts and try to argue with them.

Let me ask you, if the FBI finds that she made up the story, would you support throwing her in jail? That would be a true pursuit of the truth.

Anteaterking posted...

If you actually look at the Vox article, they code "I don't know" or "I don't recall" as answering a question (for both of them).

But only the ones for Ford count.
---

Funbazooka posted...

And I'd like to point out these exchanges.

MITCHELL: You said that you do not remember how you got home, is that correct?
FORD: I do not remember

MITCHELL: Would it be fair to say that somebody drove you somewhere, either to the party or home from the party?
FORD: Correct.

Oh, she was all over the place. The facts are in, now, and she did horribly. She answered questions differently!

Kavanaugh absolutely kicked ass, though. Good showing for us.
---

TheKentster posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

Not that someone like you is interested in the truth. You're just here to push a gimmick agenda.

I'm entirely interested in the truth. I spent much of yesterday posting very seriously on this issue. Go ahead and find my other posts and try to argue with them.

Let me ask you, if the FBI finds that she made up the story, would you support throwing her in jail? That would be a true pursuit of the truth.

I don't need to argue with them; you're extremely disingenuous.

If she perjured herself? Sure. Let's not play whataboutism though, ya? Surely you know how weak that makes your argument look.

By all means, someone take the time to examine Kavanaugh's transcript of the hearing. Make a comparison.
---

Funbazooka posted...

By all means, someone take the time to examine Kavanaugh's transcript of the hearing. Make a comparison.

Why don't you since you're so eager to do Ford's?
---

iPhone_7 posted...

But only the ones for Ford count.

No, I'm pretty sure the markings against Kavanaugh are things like

"Have you ever blacked out?"

"hAvE yOu EvEr BlAcKeD oUt?"
---

Hexenherz posted...

Why would they say that if... they've already obviously found many things?

What has the FBI found, exactly?

Did they find out what year this party took place? Or where? Or how Ford got there? Or how she got back?
---

southcoast09 posted...

Kavanaugh absolutely kicked ass, though. Good showing for us.

Imagine being this delusional.

_Rinku_ posted...

TheKentster posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

Not that someone like you is interested in the truth. You're just here to push a gimmick agenda.

I'm entirely interested in the truth. I spent much of yesterday posting very seriously on this issue. Go ahead and find my other posts and try to argue with them.

Let me ask you, if the FBI finds that she made up the story, would you support throwing her in jail? That would be a true pursuit of the truth.

I don't need to argue with them; you're extremely disingenuous.

If she perjured herself? Sure. Let's not play whataboutism though, ya? Surely you know how weak that makes your argument look.

No, not for perjury. For false accusations meant to not only ruin a good man's life but to fraud our Supreme Court process.

Since it isn't a criminal investigation all they really need to find is a bunch of people who can corroborate. They don't need a smoking gun for people to say "hey this guy probably shouldn't be on the Supreme Court"
---

Anteaterking posted...

iPhone_7 posted...

But only the ones for Ford count.

No, I'm pretty sure the markings against Kavanaugh are things like

"Have you ever blacked out?"

"hAvE yOu EvEr BlAcKeD oUt?"

MITCHELL: OK. Have you ever passed out from drinking?

KAVANAUGH: I passed out would be no, but Ive gone to sleep, but but Ive never blacked out. Thats the thats the the allegation, and that that thats wrong.
---

eston posted...

Since it isn't a criminal investigation all they really need to find is a bunch of people who can corroborate. They don't need a smoking gun for people to say "hey this guy probably shouldn't be on the Supreme Court"

If anyone can corroborate her story, we would have already heard of them. We literally don't need the FBI to find people who can.
---

Funbazooka posted...

Anteaterking posted...

iPhone_7 posted...

But only the ones for Ford count.

No, I'm pretty sure the markings against Kavanaugh are things like

"Have you ever blacked out?"

"hAvE yOu EvEr BlAcKeD oUt?"

MITCHELL: OK. Have you ever passed out from drinking?

KAVANAUGH: I passed out would be no, but Ive gone to sleep, but but Ive never blacked out. Thats the thats the the allegation, and that that thats wrong.

Yeah and that's him being very careful not to lie. She asked if he "passed out" and of course he's drank to the point where he fell asleep, so he had to note that in his answer. The point is that he never got to the point of belligerent drunkenness and had to be told what he did the next day, commonly referred to as blacking out.

Funbazooka posted...

MITCHELL: OK. Have you ever passed out from drinking?

KAVANAUGH: I passed out would be no, but Ive gone to sleep, but but Ive never blacked out. Thats the thats the the allegation, and that that thats wrong.

I was talking about his interaction with Klobuchar.
---

darkjedilink posted...

If anyone can corroborate her story, we would have already heard of them. We literally don't need the FBI to find people who can.

I'm not sure why you think you can make that claim. What do you feel is the downside to having the FBI investigate?
---

eston posted...

darkjedilink posted...

If anyone can corroborate her story, we would have already heard of them. We literally don't need the FBI to find people who can.

I'm not sure why you think you can make that claim. What do you feel is the downside to having the FBI investigate?

He's worried they'll turn up something. Particularly when they interrogate Judge
---

eston posted...

darkjedilink posted...

If anyone can corroborate her story, we would have already heard of them. We literally don't need the FBI to find people who can.

I'm not sure why you think you can make that claim. What do you feel is the downside to having the FBI investigate?

I think I can make that claim because technology exists. If anyone actually knew about a party this girl went to when she was around 15 that an older man who went on to be nominated to the Supreme Court also attended, they would have come forward.

Literally nobody has made public any sort of corroboration that Kavanaugh and Ford were in the same CITY, much less the same building. You really think that, if someone were able to, we wouldn't know about it yet?
---

So literally just you making an assumption
---

WhyGiveUp posted...

eston posted...

darkjedilink posted...

If anyone can corroborate her story, we would have already heard of them. We literally don't need the FBI to find people who can.

I'm not sure why you think you can make that claim. What do you feel is the downside to having the FBI investigate?

He's worried they'll turn up something. Particularly when they interrogate Judge

I really don't think they'll find anything. Again this has been 6 weeks since the accusations were made to the dems, to Feinstein. The FBI could have (and should have) already investigated this privately. The fact that they sat on it until the last moment proves that it's a politically motivated delay tactic.

I always find accounts to ignore on this board.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

TheKentster posted...

WhyGiveUp posted...

eston posted...

darkjedilink posted...

If anyone can corroborate her story, we would have already heard of them. We literally don't need the FBI to find people who can.

I'm not sure why you think you can make that claim. What do you feel is the downside to having the FBI investigate?

He's worried they'll turn up something. Particularly when they interrogate Judge

I really don't think they'll find anything. Again this has been 6 weeks since the accusations were made to the dems, to Feinstein. The FBI could have (and should have) already investigated this privately. The fact that they sat on it until the last moment proves that it's a politically motivated delay tactic.

Youre blatantly lying

No, I'm not.

eston posted...

So literally just you making an assumption

An assumption that the FBI isn't going to make nonexistent witnesses exist is a pretty fair one.
---

Also, it's still hilarious that every conservative on the internet still doesnt even know why they support Kavanaugh other than Trump said so. It's sad and pathetic.
---

darkjedilink posted...

eston posted...

So literally just you making an assumption

An assumption that the FBI isn't going to make nonexistent witnesses exist is a pretty fair one.

Fair and Balanced
---

If you compare the transcripts you'll find that the Senate committee members don't ask Ford questions where they demand that she answer in simple Yes/No.

They allow her to answer questions in whatever manner she desired. They don't make a show of trying to force her to answer in simple Yes or No.
---

mobile_jukester posted...

Also, it's still hilarious that every conservative on the internet still doesnt even know why they support Kavanaugh other than Trump said so. It's sad and pathetic.

I support Kavanaugh because he's a constitutionalist, who takes his job seriously. That's what the Supreme Court is supposed to be stocked with.

The only reason you DON'T is because Trump does. THAT's what's sad and pathetic.
---

Funbazooka posted...

If you compare the transcripts you'll find that the Senate committee members don't ask Ford questions where they demand that she answer in simple Yes/No.

They allow her to answer questions in whatever manner she desired. They don't make a show of trying to force her to answer in simple Yes or No.

Neither did her polygraph administrator, meaning her polygraph is worthless.
---

mobile_jukester posted...

Also, it's still hilarious that every conservative on the internet still doesnt even know why they support Kavanaugh other than Trump said so. It's sad and pathetic.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/american-bar-association-gives-brett-kavanaugh-well-qualified-rating/

The American Bar Association on Friday awarded Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh its highest rating, giving the judge a unanimous well-qualified score.

The rating of Well Qualified is reserved for those found to merit the Committees strongest affirmative endorsement, the ABA states in its description of the ranking process.

Seems like a pretty good reason to back him, don't you think?

TheKentster posted...

mobile_jukester posted...

Also, it's still hilarious that every conservative on the internet still doesnt even know why they support Kavanaugh other than Trump said so. It's sad and pathetic.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/american-bar-association-gives-brett-kavanaugh-well-qualified-rating/

The American Bar Association on Friday awarded Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh its highest rating, giving the judge a unanimous well-qualified score.

The rating of Well Qualified is reserved for those found to merit the Committees strongest affirmative endorsement, the ABA states in its description of the ranking process.

Seems like a pretty good reason to back him, don't you think?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brett-kavanaugh-american-bar-association-aba-fbi-investigation-sexual-assault-claims/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/judge-kavanaugh-american-bar-association-fbi.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-had-kavanaugh-concerns-years-ago-republicans-dismissed-those-too
---

TheKentster posted...

What will the arguments be then? We allowed the investigation (that should have been done a month ago if you weren't trying to play gotcha politics).

Then we proceed with a vote.
---

Yes @shockthemonkey, I'm aware that they made that call yesterday. It doesn't reverse their unanimous support of him a month ago, which was based on his merits throughout his career rather than this political circus.

TheKentster posted...

Yes @shockthemonkey, I'm aware that they made that call yesterday. It doesn't reverse their unanimous support of him a month ago, which was based on his merits throughout his career rather than this political circus.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-had-kavanaugh-concerns-years-ago-republicans-dismissed-those-too/
---