Believe Accusers!

[Hanafuda]

Don't play this game. The investigation didn't find anything because the white house didn't want it to find anything. Even if FBI's mission was just "fact-finding," they did a piss poor job of that too because we don't have any more facts now than we did during the senate panel.

Yeah we do. Witness tampering.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

How would you be able to know that you need 20-30 years of experience? Isn't that what the purpose of a title is?

I plead the 5th.

 

[dAVID_]

Yeah we do. Witness tampering.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



I plead the 5th.

Oooops. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

 

[kingfrost]

Yeah we do. Witness tampering.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


I plead the 5th.

OK. Please show me this cold hard proof. It better not be testimony because you've told us how unreliable that is.

I looked myself. There is none, just testimony and some calls from the Right wing side of the MSM to investigate other than article about people the FBI interview saying Kavanaugh had contact several people to make sure they had the right memories.

I don't see how any of the sources involved are credible.

 

[Xzi]

Yeah we do. Witness tampering.

I don't know what this means. Are you talking about the witness tampering Kavanaugh committed?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-ramirez-allegation-earlier-than-he-says.html

During Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony last week, Orrin Hatch asked the prospective Supreme Court justice, “When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez’s allegations against you?” Kavanaugh replied, “In the last — in the period since then, the New Yorker story.” Hatch was referring to Deborah Ramirez’s charge that Kavanaugh humiliated her by waving his penis in her face while she was intoxicated. Kavanaugh appeared to be saying he heard of the charges after they appeared in The New Yorker in September.

NBC reports that this, like many things Kavanaugh said in his testimony, is false. Kavanaugh’s friends gathered testimony attempting to refute Ramirez’s allegations weeks before The New Yorker’s story was published. Some of the witnesses were contacted by people working on Kavanaugh’s behalf as early as July, according to text messages one witness has shared with the FBI.

Because even though it's a perjury-tampering two for one, the FBI obviously didn't look into that either.

 

[Hanafuda]

OK. Please show me this cold hard proof. It better not be testimony because you've told us how unreliable that is.

I looked myself. There is none, just testimony and some calls from the Right wing side of the MSM to investigate other than article about people the FBI interview saying Kavanaugh had contact several people to make sure they had the right memories.

I don't see how any of the sources involved are credible.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152

It would come down to the actual content of the text messages from McLean to Keyser, which the FBI, White House, and Senate all have. But Keyser says she was being pressured to change her sworn statement.

 

[kingfrost]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152

It would come down to the actual content of the text messages from McLean to Keyser, which the FBI, White House, and Senate all have. But Keyser says she was being pressured to change her sworn statement.

Yes the Wall Street Journal is right leaning MSM. They have published many pro trump editorials. I don't pretend there isn't liberal MSM, I don't see the point in pretending there isn't conservative as well.

For someone so concerned about false accusations and how they effect people's lives, I am surprised that you would engage in spreading them. I wish I could say I found it shocking.

Only for counterpoint I will post:
https://lawandcrime.com/politics/le...w-kavanaugh-might-have-tampered-with-witness/

I feel that both articles make a solid case for how childish both sides are being. I fear that this will damage our country and divide it more and more.

In truth, this thread should be called "Believe accusers (but only ones that are politically expedient to my views!).

 

[Joe88]

In truth, this thread should be called "Believe accusers (but only ones that are politically expedient to my views!)

Well that's all this whole circus has ever been about

 

[kingfrost]

Well that's all this whole circus has ever been about

Of course it is. Since the election in 2016, it's all this has been. Anyone who disagrees with you is a loser, rapist or rape enabler, has fake supporters, is part of a massive conspiracy to destroy you, or is dying of illness. We allowed this and even normalized it by electing someone whose only real appeal was made through it, it's really no wonder both political parties are taking it up.

We can't undo it however and instead of making it better, both sides have decided to use it as political ammunition.

The WSJ, which we were just discussing, ran a headline that said "Susan Collins Consents" which is a glorified rape joke. Neither side has handled this properly.

 

[Hanafuda]

Yes the Wall Street Journal is right leaning MSM. They have published many pro trump editorials. I don't pretend there isn't liberal MSM, I don't see the point in pretending there isn't conservative as well.

For someone so concerned about false accusations and how they effect people's lives, I am surprised that you would engage in spreading them. I wish I could say I found it shocking.

Only for counterpoint I will post:
https://lawandcrime.com/politics/le...w-kavanaugh-might-have-tampered-with-witness/

I feel that both articles make a solid case for how childish both sides are being. I fear that this will damage our country and divide it more and more.

In truth, this thread should be called "Believe accusers (but only ones that are politically expedient to my views!).

Do you see the words "might have" in the headline for the story you linked? Ok then. Might have, could have, suggests ... and even if you get to a point where it's proven Kavanaugh knew Ramirez was trying to find witnesses to join her in a hit job (none would), that doesn't mean Kavanaugh knew the specifics, or that he didn't understand Orrin Hatch to be asking when he had first heard there were public accusations against him in the media from Ramirez. It's all subjective - if you choose to assume a few things, you can reach the conclusion you want.

As for what's the WSJ, sure it's a conservative outlet, but the paper's leanings have no bearing on what they report there, i.e. that Keyser told the FBI she felt pressured to change her statement, and that FBI provided the texts to WH and Senate.

 

[kingfrost]

Do you see the words "might have" in the headline for the story you linked? Ok then. Might have, could have, suggests ... and even if you get to a point where it's proven Kavanaugh knew Ramirez was trying to find witnesses to join her in a hit job (none would), that doesn't mean Kavanaugh knew the specifics, or that he didn't understand Orrin Hatch to be asking when he had first heard there were public accusations against him in the media from Ramirez. It's all subjective - if you choose to assume a few things, you can reach the conclusion you want.

As for what's the WSJ, sure it's a conservative outlet, but the paper's leanings have no bearing on what they report there, i.e. that Keyser told the FBI she felt pressured to change her statement, and that FBI provided the texts to WH and Senate.

There is always bias in the media.

They headlined an editorial Susan Collins Consents. You think that's unbiased? Would you feel the same if the NYT ran an article about how Kavanuagh forced himself on the Supreme Court? Would you admit they were biased?

Might isn't some great protector of false information. If I say Donald Trump might be a woman, it doesn't mean that no one call me out on it being false.

 

[Hanafuda]

There is always bias in the media.

They headlined an editorial Susan Collins Consents. You think that's unbiased? Would you feel the same if the NYT ran an article about how Kavanuagh forced himself on the Supreme Court? Would you admit they were biased?

Might isn't some great protector of false information. If I say Donald Trump might be a woman, it doesn't mean that no one call me out on it being false.

Yeah there's always bias, but are you suggesting Keyser didn't tell the FBI she felt pressured to change her sworn statement, or that the FBI didn't provide the texts from McLean to Keyser to the WH and Senate? Because unlike all that 'might have', 'could have', 'suggests' stuff you see in the usual biased articles (which are really just advocacy in disguise), this story is just a reporting of information, not speculation.


This is all it really comes down to: Does "Believe Accusers" mean that every time a male person is nominated to the Supreme Court, all it takes to end them is a female person willing to testify he did some unwelcome sexual act involving her once, even though there is no evidence to support this other than her say-so???

Yes or No???

 

[kingfrost]

Yeah there's always bias, but are you suggesting Keyser didn't tell the FBI she felt pressured to change her sworn statement, or that the FBI didn't provide the texts from McLean to Keyser to the WH and Senate? Because unlike all that 'might have', 'could have', 'suggests' stuff you see in the usual biased articles (which are really just advocacy in disguise), this story is just a reporting of known things, not speculation.

Yeah we do. Witness tampering.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



I plead the 5th.

OK you presented the article in the quotes above as proof for your statement.

You did not say there might be witness tampering. You were point black asked what the FBI investigation proved and you said, also point blank, witness tampering.

You have no proof other than an article that says it might have happened.

From your article:

The statement to the FBI offers a glimpse into how Dr. Ford’s allies were working behind the scenes to lobby old classmates to bolster their versions of the alleged incident, as were Judge Kavanaugh’s

Read that last sentence for me and tell me why you didn't mention it. It clearly states they both did so. Yes the headline doesn't, which shows the bias, but the article does.

 

[Viri]

Welp, we got a new judge! Also, the REEEEEEEEEEEEing was funny as fuck!

Spoiler

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY

 

[Hanafuda]

OK you presented the article in the quotes above as proof for your statement.

You did not say there might be witness tampering. You were point black asked what the FBI investigation proved and you said, also point blank, witness tampering.

You have no proof other than an article that says it might have happened.

From your article:



Read that last sentence for me and tell me why you didn't mention it. It clearly states they both did so. Yes the headline doesn't, which shows the bias, but the article does.

The WSJ article doesn't say it might have happened. It says Keyser told the FBI that McLean pressured her to change her statement, it says the FBI provided text messages to the WH and Senate of those communications.

I'm not the WSJ. I'm entitled to my opinion. Just like the people here who believe Kavanaugh is a mad drunken serial rapist are entitled to theirs.

 

[Joe88]

Kavanaugh has been confirmed by the senate by a vote of 50-48

He is expected to be sworn in monday or tuesday

 

[kingfrost]

I'm not the WSJ. I'm entitled to my opinion. Just like the people here who believe Kavanaugh is a mad drunken serial rapist are entitled to theirs.

Congratulations, you avoided my question just as Kavanaugh did.

Welp, we got a new judge! Also, the REEEEEEEEEEEEing was funny as fuck!

Spoiler

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL RESTORE ORDER IN THE GALLERY

I'm glad to see people don't just shut up and do what politicians say anymore. No matter who those people are.

I heard people say for years we should protest if we felt strongly about something but when you actually do it you get vilified and called fake by the party you protest against.

 

[Hanafuda]

Congratulations, you avoided my question just as Kavanaugh did.

I edited/added to the post. Probably still won't satisfy you, but thread is moot now until the next time Trump nominates someone and we learn they're a racistnazipedojunkiedrunkrapistnecrophile despite decades of unquestioned service on the Federal bench.

 

[kingfrost]

I edited/added to the post. Probably still won't satisfy you, but thread is moot now until the next time Trump nominates someone and we learn they're a racistnazipedojunkiedrunkrapistnecrophile despite decades of unquestioned service on the Federal bench.

Yes you know, predators never hide for many years in public sight. Never ever. Can't name a single one.

Or are you claiming that was all false too?

Also you didn't change anything to make me happy. I'd rather you leave it all the same, so people can see the misleading bits.

It was never personal though.

 

[Viri]

I'm glad to see people don't just shut up and do what politicians say anymore. No matter who those people are.

I heard people say for years we should protest if we felt strongly about something but when you actually do it you get vilified and called fake by the party you protest against.

The REEEEEing was music to my ears, and made me laugh non stop. Also please say it with me, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Brett M. Kavanaugh! Or, just "Your honor"

 

[kingfrost]

The REEEEEing was music to my ears, and made me laugh non stop. Also please say it with me, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Brett M. Kavanaugh! Or, just "Your honor"

I don't have to say anything. It means absolutely nothing to me.

In fact, from a purely personal point, this is the absolute best thing that could have happened. He will be excellent on the court for me and my interests.

Don't confuse hypothetical discussion about political principles with reality.