Planet Rugby Forum

BokJock wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:Ford's yearbooks scrubbed of teh ionternet. I wondered why ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxzrRLfe3WY

On Monday Sept. 17th, Christine Blasey Ford’s high school yearbooks suddenly disappeared from the web. I read them days before, knew they would be scrubbed, and saved them. Why did I know they would be scrubbed? Because if roles were reversed, and Christine Blasey Ford had been nominated for the Supreme Court by President Trump, the headline by the resistance would be this:

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AND THE DRUNKEN WHITE PRIVILEGED RACIST PLAYGIRLS OF HOLTON-ARMS.

And it would be an accurate headline. That’s why the yearbooks have been scrubbed. They are a testament to the incredible power these girls had over their teachers, parents and the boys of Georgetown Prep, Landon and other schools in the area. In the pages below, you will see multiple photos and references to binge drinking and the accompanying joy of not being able to remember any of it.

These yearbooks are, therefore, relevant to the national investigation now being conducted in the media, in homes, and in the halls of Congress. And they should not have been scrubbed. If Brett Kavanaugh’s yearbooks are fair game, so are these.

These yearbooks allow us to glean a clearer picture of the girl Christine Blasey Ford was in high school, and after looking them over, it’s easy to see why she can’t recall key details of the night Brett Kavanaugh allegedly tried to rape her — it appears there is much about Ford’s high school years she cannot recall because of binge drinking.

This is the character of the woman we are dealing with. Meanwhile, the man she has accused of rape some 35-years-ago has a much different reputation. He has been lauded by friends, colleagues, and ex-girlfriends as a perfect gentleman.

Republicans have demanded that Blasey Ford testifies before Monday or the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh will move forward, but the judge’s accuser has refused. Now, with the credibility of her story rapidly falling apart, it is looking less and less likely that she will do so.

So, who REALLY doesn't want the woman to testify ? The Reps ?

That link and the source for your "article"

Seneca of the Night wrote:
I see Kavanaugh has said he'll release his calendar for 1982. How many 16 years kept a calendar and then kept it stored in the attic for the off chance that they'd go through this kind of process? Supreme Court timber that is right there I say.

paddyor wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:
I see Kavanaugh has said he'll release his calendar for 1982. How many 16 years kept a calendar and then kept it stored in the attic for the off chance that they'd go through this kind of process? Supreme Court timber that is right there I say.

Tuesday 15th October - Rap(strikethru) Studying

Wilson's Toffee wrote:

BokJock wrote:
That link and the source for your "article"

So where is her yearbook ? Stop trying to kill the messenger ...

BokJock wrote:Oh, you were just trolling. silly me

guy smiley wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:

BokJock wrote:Oh, you were just trolling. silly me

No. Seek the truth. Stop kicking everybody that disagrees with you in the teeth - a truly leftist trait.

Outs self as leftist...

gets foot stuck in mouth.

Wilson's Toffee wrote:

BokJock wrote:Oh, you were just trolling. silly me

No. Seek the truth. Stop kicking everybody that disagrees with you in the teeth - a truly leftist trait.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

paddyor wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:
I see Kavanaugh has said he'll release his calendar for 1982. How many 16 years kept a calendar and then kept it stored in the attic for the off chance that they'd go through this kind of process? Supreme Court timber that is right there I say.

Tuesday 15th October - Rap(strikethru) Studying

Monday - making love
Tuesday - making love
Wednesday - making love
Thursday - gang rape

paddyor wrote:Rosenstein gone. Well, it was a horrible smear campaign tbh.

Mr Mike wrote:

paddyor wrote:Rosenstein gone. Well, it was a horrible smear campaign tbh.

Trump shouldn’t fire him, just suspend him on full pay pending a thorough investigation into the allegations.

Mr Mike wrote:

paddyor wrote:Rosenstein gone. Well, it was a horrible smear campaign tbh.

Trump shouldn’t fire him, just suspend him on full pay pending a thorough investigation into the allegations.

zt1903 wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

paddyor wrote:Rosenstein gone. Well, it was a horrible smear campaign tbh.

Trump shouldn’t fire him, just suspend him on full pay pending a thorough investigation into the allegations.

He hasn’t fired him. The report is that Rosenstein has resigned.

Santa wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

paddyor wrote:Rosenstein gone. Well, it was a horrible smear campaign tbh.

Trump shouldn’t fire him, just suspend him on full pay pending a thorough investigation into the allegations.

He hasn’t fired him. The report is that Rosenstein has resigned.

That is rather large news.

saffer13 wrote:So in the court of public PR opinion...has Kav been convicted yet?

saffer13 wrote:So in the court of public PR opinion...has Kav been convicted yet?

zt1903 wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

paddyor wrote:Rosenstein gone. Well, it was a horrible smear campaign tbh.

Trump shouldn’t fire him, just suspend him on full pay pending a thorough investigation into the allegations.

He hasn’t fired him. The report is that Rosenstein has resigned.

paddyor wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

paddyor wrote:Rosenstein gone. Well, it was a horrible smear campaign tbh.

Trump shouldn’t fire him, just suspend him on full pay pending a thorough investigation into the allegations.

He hasn’t fired him. The report is that Rosenstein has resigned.

Trump did the same thing with another person he fired(claimed they resigned), has to do with the Vacancies Act and Trumps ability to appoint a successor. More reports that he hasn't resigned and isn't going to.

Why would he resign?

Santa wrote:

saffer13 wrote:So in the court of public PR opinion...has Kav been convicted yet?

They know him as Kav the Sav due to his alleged and therefore definitely true penis presenting ways.

saffer13 wrote:

Santa wrote:

saffer13 wrote:So in the court of public PR opinion...has Kav been convicted yet?

They know him as Kav the Sav due to his alleged and therefore definitely true penis presenting ways.

Ah, the world of guilty until proven innocent depending on which side of the aisle you're on?

Santa wrote:Honour. So yeah unlikely to resign.

houtkabouter wrote:She’s not running though, Kavanaugh is.

But continue with the distraction posting, you guys have got really good at it. We are totally distracted.

saffer13 wrote:

houtkabouter wrote:She’s not running though, Kavanaugh is.

But continue with the distraction posting, you guys have got really good at it. We are totally distracted.

And if guilty he should be removed. But keep pretending there are no other political tactics at play...you guys have got really good at that.

Who are these "you guys" you are referring to btw?

houtkabouter wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

houtkabouter wrote:She’s not running though, Kavanaugh is.

But continue with the distraction posting, you guys have got really good at it. We are totally distracted.

And if guilty he should be removed. But keep pretending there are no other political tactics at play...you guys have got really good at that.

Who are these "you guys" you are referring to btw?

I’m not pretending, Dems are definitely playing politics.

Politics. The thing that railroaded Garland, much more sensible candidate.

I didn’t see you commenting on how dodgy that whole episode was.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

houtkabouter wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

houtkabouter wrote:She’s not running though, Kavanaugh is.

But continue with the distraction posting, you guys have got really good at it. We are totally distracted.

And if guilty he should be removed. But keep pretending there are no other political tactics at play...you guys have got really good at that.

Who are these "you guys" you are referring to btw?

I’m not pretending, Dems are definitely playing politics.

Politics. The thing that railroaded Garland, much more sensible candidate.

I didn’t see you commenting on how dodgy that whole episode was.

How so?

Seneca of the Night wrote:Just looking at this New Yorker story, it is quite baffling that they would choose to print that. Ronan Farrow has obviously done some great work, but for a magazine famous for its fact checking and journalistic rectitude it is a low stain that they'd run with something so bereft of definitive supporting evidence.

Just having an afternoon flick around some sites it appears to me conservatives are a bit shell shocked. They knew Democrats play a no prisoners game, but this is just a whole new level, and it's hard to know how to respond.

Cue blah blah blah the GOP deserve it they do it too blah blah.

You are wrong.

Following Bork's nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of him, declaring:

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy ... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.[25][26]

Bork responded, "There was not a line in that speech that was accurate."[27] In an obituary of Kennedy, The Economist remarked that Bork may well have been correct, "but it worked."[27] Bork also contended in his best-selling[28] book, The Tempting of America, that the brief prepared for Sen. Joe Biden, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility."[29]

Television advertisements produced by People For the American Way and narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist. Kennedy's speech successfully fueled widespread public skepticism of Bork's nomination. The rapid response to Kennedy's "Robert Bork's America" speech stunned the Reagan White House, and the accusations went unanswered for two and a half months.[30]

During debate over his nomination, Bork's video rental history was leaked to the press. His video rental history was unremarkable, and included such harmless titles as A Day at the Races, Ruthless People, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. Writer Michael Dolan, who obtained a copy of the hand-written list of rentals, wrote about it for the Washington City Paper.[31] Dolan justified accessing the list on the ground that Bork himself had stated that Americans had only such privacy rights as afforded them by direct legislation. The incident led to the enactment of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act.[32][33]

The late judge didn't have a chance to move Supreme Court jurisprudence. But his failure to be confirmed had a profound and regrettable effect on how we nominate justices today.

The relentless honesty and arrogant mien of Robert Bork, who has died at 84, during his unforgettable 1987 Supreme Court nomination hearing resulted in two very important things for this nation. First, it precluded the ideologue from becoming a life-tenured justice, which has meant over the intervening 25 years many saving graces for progressives and many bitter disappointments for conservatives. Second, it changed (forever, I suspect) the way judicial confirmation hearings unfold, by encouraging earnest nominees to say to the Senate Judiciary Committee nothing at all candid, specific, or profound about their judicial philosophies or views of the law.

The self-defeating lesson which official Washington took from the political savagery of the 1987 proceedings was that nominees were better off saying nothing publicly about their views of the law and were better off serving up empty platitudes when backed into a corner by their Judiciary Committee inquisitors. Sadly, you can draw a direct line from Bork's experience to John Roberts' patronizing "umpire" analogy during his 2005 confirmation hearing.

paddyor wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:Just looking at this New Yorker story, it is quite baffling that they would choose to print that. Ronan Farrow has obviously done some great work, but for a magazine famous for its fact checking and journalistic rectitude it is a low stain that they'd run with something so bereft of definitive supporting evidence.

Just having an afternoon flick around some sites it appears to me conservatives are a bit shell shocked. They knew Democrats play a no prisoners game, but this is just a whole new level, and it's hard to know how to respond.

Cue blah blah blah the GOP deserve it they do it too blah blah.

You are wrong.

Apparently the supporting "proof" were her classmates who became aware of the incident and were emailing about back in July.

https://www.today.com/video/why-kavanau ... 0?v=railb&

I mean you're kind of ignoring the fact that the big enabler here is Trump. Birtherism, Pizzagate the Mueller investigation. Who else has he smeared with little/no supporting evidence?

Seneca of the Night wrote:

paddyor wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:Just looking at this New Yorker story, it is quite baffling that they would choose to print that. Ronan Farrow has obviously done some great work, but for a magazine famous for its fact checking and journalistic rectitude it is a low stain that they'd run with something so bereft of definitive supporting evidence.

Just having an afternoon flick around some sites it appears to me conservatives are a bit shell shocked. They knew Democrats play a no prisoners game, but this is just a whole new level, and it's hard to know how to respond.

Cue blah blah blah the GOP deserve it they do it too blah blah.

You are wrong.

Apparently the supporting "proof" were her classmates who became aware of the incident and were emailing about back in July.

https://www.today.com/video/why-kavanau ... 0?v=railb&

Well, Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow are senior journalists and I'm sure they've more than kicked this over with themselves and their editors, but that interview is still not very convincing. They've had the decency to publish their own issues with the story I guess, but that doesn't really matter in the overall scheme of things. The damage is done with the publication.

It's also clear that Feinstein et al knew this story was coming down the pipe too, so they were needing to stall long enough to get it across the line. It's not good, it really isn't.

paddyor wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:Just looking at this New Yorker story, it is quite baffling that they would choose to print that. Ronan Farrow has obviously done some great work, but for a magazine famous for its fact checking and journalistic rectitude it is a low stain that they'd run with something so bereft of definitive supporting evidence.

Just having an afternoon flick around some sites it appears to me conservatives are a bit shell shocked. They knew Democrats play a no prisoners game, but this is just a whole new level, and it's hard to know how to respond.

Cue blah blah blah the GOP deserve it they do it too blah blah.

You are wrong.

Apparently the supporting "proof" were her classmates who became aware of the incident and were emailing about back in July.

https://www.today.com/video/why-kavanau ... 0?v=railb&

I mean you're kind of ignoring the fact that the big enabler here is Trump. Birtherism, Pizzagate the Mueller investigation. Who else has he smeared with little/no supporting evidence?