Current Events > Lol FBI provides 1 physical report for senate to share

(+) Yeah! (+)

s0nicfan posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

Nobody actually believes that if Kav responded to all these accusations with "I plead the 5th" that he would have come out looking better, do they?

Normally I'd agree with you, but Kav sounded like an unhinged manchild. That may not have hurt his presumed innocence, but it certainly hurt his appearance of basic competency.

So you stated before that coming from Ford's perspective and believing that she isn't lying, her behavior seems normal for someone in that situation.

Just for a moment, I'd like you to apply that same concept to him. Pretend for just a second that he truly believes he didn't do it. He's in front of congress after weeks of being accused of rape across the country. His family is receiving death threats. He knows he won't be able to go back to his normal hobbies. People are coming out of the woodwork to accuse him of all sorts of crazy things. Senators are calling a vote for him being "complicit in evil", and after all this drama and pain there's a chance that it will all be for nothing and he'll be unceremoniously dumped because it's politically safe going into the midterms, putting him in a position where his career which he's built over a lifetime suddenly is at a dead end. Is it really fair to call his response that of an unhinged manchild, given that perspective?

Yes it absolutely is fair. He's interviewing to be on the bench of the highest court in the land. The apex of his career choice. If he can't calm his ass down in the face of what is supposed to be a false accusation, then he isn't fit to make level headed decisions in SCOTUS.

Anyway hopefully I did a better job of explaining my political views, or rather, my political existentialism/misanthropy.

But I'm also starting to realize that sometimes you have to accept that these things are an extension of human nature, so maybe choosing the lesser of two evils is indeed the best option we have.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Anyway hopefully I did a better job of explaining my political views, or rather, my political existentialism/misanthropy.

But I'm also starting to realize that sometimes you have to accept that these things are an extension of human nature, so maybe choosing the lesser of two evils is indeed the best option we have.

I guess I get where you're coming from now. I really haven't seen anyone wanting to deny Kavanaugh of his rights except for political purposes myself, but really the whole thing has been a mess and he doesn't come off as a good candidate simply from his poor reaction to all of this.
---

Balrog0 posted...

idk, I haven't really talked about this issue much because I actually don't really care about the angle that he's a garbage human so he shouldn't be on the supreme court

frankly his hyper-partisan background is the deal breaker for me; it's very atypical for a justice

like of course they have ideological backgrounds (RBG being involved with the ACLU, whatever) but the explicitly partisan nature of kavanaugh's is crazy

This is my problem too. Like judges are supposed to at least pretend to be impartial. Hyperpartisan dogshit is ruining our country.
---

Delay the vote until after the midterms, or Nancy Pelosi will strip naked and dance in the House of Representatives.
---

What the world needs, right here, right now, is Diamond Joe


---

Coffeebeanz posted...

What the world needs, right here, right now, is Diamond Joe

I probably would have voted for him if he ran.
---

no matter how many times his mannerisms are brought up, that argument isn't the one people want to focus on.

I wonder how many people's lives he has ruined in court due to his indignant nature? Kavanaugh in his chair sitting all high and mighty while a defendant has to plead their innocence in front of their family and peers. suffering the humiliation of being accused of something you feel shouldn't be accused of shouldn't be a new concept to Kavanaugh. he's a man who has been given enough privilege to feel entitled to better treatment by default. double standards.

definitely NOT somebody who should be able to dictate the direction of somebody else's life. dude even tried to go after Bill Clinton back in the day for his sex scandal which had no rape allegations, but now he wants to be treated fairly?

karma, bitch. you know the game. if you're going to play it dirty, you forfiet your right to cry when you get out played.

too many want to have their cake and eat it too. unfortunately partisan shills pick and choose their favorites.
---

Woah man, calm down. We're at the relaxed meme phase of the topic.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Woah man, calm down. We're at the relaxed meme phase of the topic.

---

Anybody Trump could have appointed would have gone through the same kangaroo court. Im glad this is almost over.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

Anybody Trump could have appointed would have gone through the same kangaroo court.

I keep seeing this, but why did Gorsuch sail through so easily if so? And why did McConnell prefer anyone but Kavanaugh even before this?

Seems too generous to me.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

Woah man, calm down. We're at the relaxed meme phase of the topic.

Nobody does inappropriate better than Joe
---

Balrog0 posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Anybody Trump could have appointed would have gone through the same kangaroo court.

I keep seeing this, but why did Gorsuch sail through so easily if so? And why did McConnell prefer anyone but Kavanaugh even before this?

Seems too generous to me.

I meant for this seat. The repubs have a majority that the Dems just cant tolerate now.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Woah man, calm down. We're at the relaxed meme phase of the topic.

https://imgur.com/UUEQe3l
---

When Joe Biden asks a paraplegic to "stand up and take a bow" you cringed, but at the same time loved the dark humor of it all.
---

Balrog0 posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Anybody Trump could have appointed would have gone through the same kangaroo court.

I keep seeing this, but why did Gorsuch sail through so easily if so? And why did McConnell prefer anyone but Kavanaugh even before this?

Seems too generous to me.

You say that, but they tried to nail him as someone who regularly ruled against minorities. Schumer tried to filibuster it. They tried to claim he was a plagiarist. At least one dem said they would do anything in their power to stop him. He passed committee with a 11-9 party-line vote. They tried all the same tactics as here, only without being able to justify a delay due to the nature of the accusations. And this doesn't even touch the whole "stolen seat" angle that everyone took leading up to the actual vote. I think people just have short term memories about this stuff.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

When Joe Biden asks a paraplegic to "stand up and take a bow" you cringed, but at the same time loved the dark humor of it all.

---

s0nicfan posted...

You say that, but they tried to nail him as someone who regularly ruled against minorities. Schumer tried to filibuster it. They tried to claim he was a plagiarist. At least one dem said they would do anything in their power to stop him. He passed committee with a 11-9 party-line vote. They tried all the same tactics as here, only without being able to justify a delay due to the nature of the accusations. And this doesn't even touch the whole "stolen seat" angle that everyone took leading up to the actual vote. I think people just have short term memories about this stuff.

Being voted against based on clear ideological differences is a very different thing from what you are claiming, which is that Democrats are fabricating or exploiting false rape accusations.
---

s0nicfan posted...

You say that, but they tried to nail him as someone who regularly ruled against minorities. Schumer tried to filibuster it. They tried to claim he was a plagiarist. At least one dem said they would do anything in their power to stop him. He passed committee with a 11-9 party-line vote. They tried all the same tactics as here, only without being able to justify a delay due to the nature of the accusations. And this doesn't even touch the whole "stolen seat" angle that everyone took leading up to the actual vote. I think people just have short term memories about this stuff.

Yes, what Antifar said. All of this confirms to me that the two situations are very different. Unless you think between then and now the Democrats decided "well, everything in my power before didn't mean ginning up rape accusations, but now that is in my power" which, while not implausible, seems to be a very different thing
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

I wonder how many people's lives he has ruined in court due to his indignant nature? Kavanaugh in his chair sitting all high and mighty while a defendant has to plead their innocence in front of their family and peers. suffering the humiliation of being accused of something you feel shouldn't be accused of shouldn't be a new concept to Kavanaugh. he's a man who has been given enough privilege to feel entitled to better treatment by default. double standards.

I doubt he heard any criminal cases until after they have gone through the grand jury where it is decided whether there is enough evidence gathered by the prosecution to be able to formally indict a suspect.
---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

You say that, but they tried to nail him as someone who regularly ruled against minorities. Schumer tried to filibuster it. They tried to claim he was a plagiarist. At least one dem said they would do anything in their power to stop him. He passed committee with a 11-9 party-line vote. They tried all the same tactics as here, only without being able to justify a delay due to the nature of the accusations. And this doesn't even touch the whole "stolen seat" angle that everyone took leading up to the actual vote. I think people just have short term memories about this stuff.

Yes, what Antifar said. All of this confirms to me that the two situations are very different. Unless you think between then and now the Democrats decided "well, everything in my power before didn't mean ginning up rape accusations, but now that is in my power" which, while not implausible, seems to be a very different thing

I was responding to the claim that he "sailed through easily" which I don't remember being the case. Obviously the situations are very different, but the last seat didn't threaten to completely tilt the ideological balance of the supreme court, so we shouldn't also pretend like the stakes were the same as they were back then. It also wasn't right before a midterm when exciting the base means the difference between a power swing or status quo. I also don't think the accusation is fabricated in the sense that I believe Ford really was sexually assaulted. I just don't think the evidence points to Kavanaugh and her inability to remember any details (combined with the fact that at the hearing she had trouble remembering even recent details like the date of her polygraph test) makes it difficult to believe she can be 100% certain it was him when she's not even remotely certain about anything else.
---

evidence
NOUN
mass noun
1The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1Law Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.
without evidence, they can't bring a charge
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.2 Signs or indications of something.
there was no obvious evidence of a break-in

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence
---

s0nicfan posted...

I was responding to the claim that he "sailed through easily" which I don't remember being the case

He got confirmed by a 9 vote margin... The hearings didn't take long at all.

s0nicfan posted...

Obviously the situations are very different, but the last seat didn't threaten to completely tilt the ideological balance of the supreme court, so we shouldn't also pretend like the stakes were the same as they were back then.

Neil Gorsuch is also a less controversial pick, but I agree.

s0nicfan posted...

I also don't think the accusation is fabricated in the sense that I believe Ford really was sexually assaulted. I just don't think the evidence points to Kavanaugh and her inability to remember any details (combined with the fact that at the hearing she had trouble remembering even recent details like the date of her polygraph test) makes it difficult to believe she can be 100% certain it was him when she's not even remotely certain about anything else.

I still find this to be a rather incredible claim, though. Like, did the Democrats find this person? That seems like a conspiracy theory to me, but it is one I've seen (for instance, the claim that she recovered her memories in 2012 lining up with the time that Romney was polling over Obama)

But unless that's the case I don't understand why its meaningful to point that out exactly. If she came to them and she really believes this then how is the media circus not justified? Again, they're different, but Neil Gorsuch didn't have anyone come forward...

Idk, just seems like trying to imply some wrong doing without directly saying she's lying or a playing politics.
---

Paragon21XX posted...

I doubt he heard any criminal cases until after they have gone through the grand jury where it is decided whether there is enough evidence gathered by the prosecution to be able to formally indict a suspect.

Having been on a grand jury, we indicted basically everything.
---

Antifar posted...

Paragon21XX posted...

I doubt he heard any criminal cases until after they have gone through the grand jury where it is decided whether there is enough evidence gathered by the prosecution to be able to formally indict a suspect.

Having been on a grand jury, we indicted basically everything.

And how many of those cases did you feel lacked sufficient evidence to warrant an indictment ("no true bill")?
---

Balrog0 posted...

I still find this to be a rather incredible claim, though. Like, did the Democrats find this person? That seems like a conspiracy theory to me, but it is one I've seen (for instance, the claim that she recovered her memories in 2012 lining up with the time that Romney was polling over Obama)

But unless that's the case I don't understand why its meaningful to point that out exactly. If she came to them and she really believes this then how is the media circus not justified? Again, they're different, but Neil Gorsuch didn't have anyone come forward...

Idk, just seems like trying to imply some wrong doing without directly saying she's lying or a playing politics.

Well remember that she submitted a letter with a request to remain private, with details that differed from later testimony. She DIDN'T "come to them" with the intent of having things turn out this way. Her therapy notes also don't mention anyone by name. She also mentions vacationing in the mid-atlantic which clashes with her lawyer's claim that they needed to delay the hearing because she was afraid of flying. I don't see why it's so crazy to think that something happened and she kept it bottled up for years, and then later when she finally started to seek therapy for it and all the details were hazy she locked in on one name that she remembered. I doubt anyone was telling her "are you really sure this was the guy?", and once things went public she was clearly being coached which is why she took a polygraph in the first place without even knowing who paid for it.

It just doesn't make sense that someone with such a clear, traceable history of having a bad memory, trying to remember details of an event that she can't even pinpoint, and surrounded by people she gave by name that say they don't remember it happening, could be so completely certain that it was Kavanaugh.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I still find this to be a rather incredible claim, though. Like, did the Democrats find this person? That seems like a conspiracy theory to me, but it is one I've seen (for instance, the claim that she recovered her memories in 2012 lining up with the time that Romney was polling over Obama)

But unless that's the case I don't understand why its meaningful to point that out exactly. If she came to them and she really believes this then how is the media circus not justified? Again, they're different, but Neil Gorsuch didn't have anyone come forward...

Idk, just seems like trying to imply some wrong doing without directly saying she's lying or a playing politics.

Well remember that she submitted a letter with a request to remain anonymous, with details that differed from later testimony. She DIDN'T "come to them" with the intent of having things turn out this way. Her therapy notes also don't mention anyone by name. She also mentions vacationing in the mid-atlantic which clashes with her lawyer's claim that they needed to delay the hearing because she was afraid of flying. I don't see why it's so crazy to think that something happened and she kept it bottled up for years, and then later when she finally started to seek therapy for it and all the details were hazy she locked in on one name that she remembered. I doubt anyone was telling her "are you really sure this was the guy?", and once things went public she was clearly being coached which is why she took a polygraph in the first place without even knowing who paid for it.

It just doesn't make sense that someone with such a clear, traceable history of having a bad memory, trying to remember details of an event that she can't even pinpoint, and surrounded by people she gave by name that say they don't remember it happening, could be so completely certain that it was Kavanaugh.

She literally explained this to you with science in her testimony. Next.
---

It's tiring to see people mischaracterize the situation.
There is evidence.
The evidence corroborates the allegations.

Learn words, people
---

Balrog0 posted...

I still find this to be a rather incredible claim, though. Like, did the Democrats find this person? That seems like a conspiracy theory to me, but it is one I've seen (for instance, the claim that she recovered her memories in 2012 lining up with the time that Romney was polling over Obama)

And as I've stated before, her medical documents would be next to impossible to forge unless she had no insurance, no history with the therapist, and no referral for the therapy visits. And furthermore others are corroborating her claims of needing the couples counseling, so I'm pretty certain Republicans won't even bother to address the validity of this because it would end up looking much worse for them than it already does.
---

Found a fun tweet though

https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1047492272164671490
---

Who cares how long the report was. Is he innocent or guilty?
---

CommonStar posted...

Many Of Brett Kavanaughs Ex-Classmates Wanted To Talk But FBI Reportedly Ignored Them
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-classmates_us_5bb5c505e4b0876eda9b42fb

Because all they wanted to hit him on was their opinion of how much he drank, partied, etc... not talk about the root issue which is "Is this man a sexual deviant who assaults women?" People drink in college, some more than others, it's a waste of time to run that down imo. It's the constant flailing about what standard he needs to meet that has turned me off to this. They wanted an investigation into the allegations of sexual misconduct, they got it, now people are crying because they didnt investigate his drinking habits too.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Doom_Art posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

So what we're left with is what will likely be a confirmation that will always remain very controversial. Whether or not it actually should be.

That was a valid strategy for the Dems tbh

Make what should've been a routine appointment controversial and toxic going in to midterms and if Kavanaugh is confirmed this makes any SCOTUS decisions he's part of controversial and gives the left the ability to cast doubt on them

And if all else fails, just threaten to pack the courts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/07/10/democrats-must-consider-
court-packing-when-they-regain-power-its-the-only-way-to-save-democracy/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hey-democrats-pack-the-court_us_5b33f7a8e4b0b5e692f3f3d4
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/07/what-is-court-packing-and-why-should-democrats-con.html
https://newrepublic.com/article/148358/democrats-prepare-pack-supreme-court
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/why-democrats-should-rig-the-senate-and-pack-the-supreme-court.html
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/2/17513520/court-packing-explained-fdr-roosevelt-new-deal-democrats-supreme-court

Court packing is effective in the very short run, but when the door swings the other way the other side will just do the same. Well end up with 101 Justices and itll be the same cluster fuck that is Congress.
---