Chat Forum
It is currently Wed May 27, 2020 6:47 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112544 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2128, 2129, 2130, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2134 ... 2814  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15377
Location: South Oxfordshire
Rinkals wrote:
zt1903 wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Hayley resigns the morning before Kanye visits the WH...............


Good call.

It really wouldn't surprise me.

Apparently Trump wants to appoint Ivanka.

Colour me surprised.


He’s probably trolling.

You don't think that betrays your gullibility?

I think it's more likely that he wanted to appoint her but was dissuaded by WH staff..


It's s confirmable position. Even Mitch would doubt his ability to jam that one through the Senate


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:41 am
Posts: 1746
Rinkals wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Hayley resigns the morning before Kanye visits the WH...............


Good call.

It really wouldn't surprise me.

Apparently Trump wants to appoint Ivanka.

Colour me surprised.


She would be a like for like replacement - neocon Zionist loving anti-Russian warmonger.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8534
https://youtu.be/UNyvG9A1lak

Yes it would be dynamite and yes it would nepotism and no one is surprised you don’t know anyone better qualified.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16815
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
obelixtim wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
obelixtim wrote:
Quote:
It also fails to notice that the majority of americans voted the other way in the last election, so there is a considerable proportion of the country that wouldn't feel that this was 'bashing them around the head', rather reflecting their own thoughts on the state of their democracy.




Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

80% of eligible voters did not vote the other way. Of those who did vote, the dems got 3 million more votes overall. Only 20% of eligible voters, voted for Trump. Their screwed up electoral college system allowed him to steal the presidency from the majority.

This is why the GOP is gonna get a hiding in November.


Like the Springboks were tipped, by you, to get a hiding in Wellington, a few weeks ago ?


Well the way most Bok fans, including yourself, had run up the white flag before the game, it seems I was not alone in thinking the Boks would get smashed.

Trump is expertly galvanising the opposition. But lets just wait and see.



Serious comment - Trump is a much better politician than I gave him credit for. Or he is steered magnificently by a total expert.
And the Dems provide the ammunition.


That's an extremely naive assessment. The White House and Republicans will be spending a massive amount of money analysing and (attempting to) guiding his every move and utterance. That he still comes across as an uneducated, clueless, bigoted, bombastic clod is purely down to the man himself and the impossible task his team of political minders have been given.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2799
https://babylonbee.com/news/ocasio-cort ... g-midterms

Geniunely reminds me of some posters on here. Plenty of window-licking “intellectuals” around these parts.
Keep regurgitating what you heard from your pol sci lecturer and CNN, it’s adorable!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16815
saffer13 wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Fangle wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Imagine if the FBI had actually been able to speak to the principle actors involved and actually managed to come up with something exculpatory - then you might have a point.

If she actually has credible witnesses, then she should go to court. The great majority of the media will support her.


She did actually name several people who were then backed up by an entry in Kav's calendar that would've been worth having trained FBI investigators actually get to talk to, but that never came to pass.

Oh well.

So it should be easy for people who actually investigate these crimes (not the FBI in this case) to make a case and bring charges. :thumbup:


Except for Fangle, it's not surprising but very sad all the same, to see you lot uttering such ignorant and arrogant tripe.

Fangle, I thought you had more decency in you, but I guess political views are overarching, all-consuming and totally polarising these days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8534
^ not sure if we're being subjected to a whoosh or a massive WT-esque facepalm here :?

edit - for killface's post


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2799
Hong Kong wrote:
^ not sure if we're being subjected to a whoosh or a massive WT-esque facepalm here :?

edit - for killface's post


:lol:
So predictable.

It’s understandable that you would think someone would believe it isn’t satire, what with how incredibly thick she is.

Rinkals-esque in her ignorance on virtually every aspect of (political) thought, she is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10968
That website is as funny as a root canal. :blush:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9527
Rinkals wrote:
zt1903 wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Hayley resigns the morning before Kanye visits the WH...............


Good call.

It really wouldn't surprise me.

Apparently Trump wants to appoint Ivanka.

Colour me surprised.


He’s probably trolling.

You don't think that betrays your gullibility?

I think it's more likely that he wanted to appoint her but was dissuaded by WH staff..


Right back at ya.

You don’t think your willingness to believe he was dissuaded betrays your gullibility?

I don't know the context for the comment but is it not just one of his off the cuff utterances that gets parsed and analysed to death? He didn’t say he wanted to appoint her, he just said he couldn’t imagine someone more competent. As previously stated it requires confirmation and he must know he’d never get that through.

The favourite is apparently Rick Grenell, the neocons want Dina Powell.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40479
Bowens wrote:
That website is as funny as a root canal. :blush:


SSShhhhhh. That is one of Sen's favourite sources.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8534
Ahh so you knew it was supposed to be funny. Which is heavy ironing right there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9527
Rinkals wrote:
zt1903 wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Found it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40937429

Quote:
The 2013 incident only became public in 2015 when radio personality David Mueller- who lost his job after Ms Swift's team reported the groping claim to his radio station - filed a defamation lawsuit against Ms Swift.

With the incident out in the open, Ms Swift filed a countersuit alleging sexual assault - which she has just won.

In court, Taylor Swift's mother, Andrea Swift, said she did not go to police when her daughter first told her she had been groped because: "I did not want this event to define her life."

"I did not want her to have to live through the endless memes and gifs that tabloid media and internet trolls decided to come up with - doctoring the pictures… and making her relive this awful moment over and over again," she said.
...
Taylor Swift's reasons for not going to the police, as told by her mother, who is part of her management team, are revealing. The case highlights how some victims fear being ridiculed, not being believed or not being taken seriously after reporting an alleged sexual assault.


Quote:
The trial showed how some defence lawyers try to undermine the credibility of an alleged victim.

But some of the most potent moments occurred when Taylor Swift refused to let that happen.

At one point, rejecting an accusation that she had misidentified Mueller, she said: "I'm not going to allow you or your client to say I am to blame."


I am quoting parts of the report on Taylor Swift's court case, to hilight the similarities between her case and Dr. Ford's and to suggest that these experiences are not isolated incidents for a lot of women. Trump's attempts to humiliate Ford have certainly worked extremely well, but I suspect that there will be repercussions.

I found Ford's testimony to be a lot more compelling than Kavaugh's, and although one likes to presume innocence in the absence of indisputable evidence (which doesn't include hand-drawn calendars) I found it far more likely that he was lying than that she was.


You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but FWIW I think it is far more likely that she was lying than he was.


Yes, that is Trump's current view.

At the time, I think he called her "a very credible witness" and "very compelling". Can i ask why you are so convinced that she was lying? and that Kavanaughs own description of himself as a moderate drinker was easier to believe?


OK, I’ll bite. Honestly I found her more likeable than him, but that’s not really the point. You need to believe evidence not people, people lie regardless of their gender or how nice they seem.

1. As for the “very credible” stuff. In the first instance people were obviously under instructions to be nice, and to not bully the nice lady. That was a wise tactic. That the position changed after the hearing and investigation is not that surprising.

2. Kavanaugh did not actually describe himself as a “moderate drinker”, just as he didn’t describe himself as a choirboy. That stuff is completely a red herring anyway.

3. Ford offered up several fact witnesses as part of her story, none corroborated her story and arguably her strongest potential witness directly refuted it.

4. Her story changed materially over the duration.

5. The gaps in her story were odd and all too convenient, in that she was oddly specific in some areas and then conveniently blank in others. Almost too perfectly designed to be impossible to disprove.

6. The timing and circumstances of the breaking of the story absolutely stunk. I was willing to believe that she wasn’t part of that and may, indeed, have been a victim of it. Not so sure now.

7. She was surrounded by Democrat operatives, it really does look like they influenced her testimony and it looked coordinated with the other allegations and media coverage.

8. The failure of her team to provide requested information to the committee.

9. She has been subsequently caught in multiple lies. Not contrived ones like those thrown at Kavanaugh, but actually verifiably false statements.

So, on balance, I think it seems more likely that she lied.

Anyway that’s my opinion, I think I’m done talking about this now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9036
Location: The Fountain of Running Rugby
Hong Kong wrote:
^ not sure if we're being subjected to a whoosh or a massive WT-esque facepalm here :?

edit - for killface's post

Another Saffer. are you really surprised?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15252
Quote:
5. The gaps in her story were odd and all too convenient, in that she was oddly specific in some areas and then conveniently blank in others. Almost too perfectly designed to be impossible to disprove.


Just to pick up on this point, the statements she supplied were consistent with current theories of how traumatic episodes are encoded.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3075
Ted. wrote:
saffer13 wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Fangle wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Imagine if the FBI had actually been able to speak to the principle actors involved and actually managed to come up with something exculpatory - then you might have a point.

If she actually has credible witnesses, then she should go to court. The great majority of the media will support her.


She did actually name several people who were then backed up by an entry in Kav's calendar that would've been worth having trained FBI investigators actually get to talk to, but that never came to pass.

Oh well.

So it should be easy for people who actually investigate these crimes (not the FBI in this case) to make a case and bring charges. :thumbup:


Except for Fangle, it's not surprising but very sad all the same, to see you lot uttering such ignorant and arrogant tripe.

Fangle, I thought you had more decency in you, but I guess political views are overarching, all-consuming and totally polarising these days.


I seriously have not been following the details of this. I really don't know why the FBI didn't interview the credible witnesses. It seems very remiss and shocking that they didn't. And I do believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, as it is, it seems as if he will be forever tainted in many people's eyes. You cannot prove a negative.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17008
zt1903 wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
zt1903 wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Found it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40937429

Quote:
The 2013 incident only became public in 2015 when radio personality David Mueller- who lost his job after Ms Swift's team reported the groping claim to his radio station - filed a defamation lawsuit against Ms Swift.

With the incident out in the open, Ms Swift filed a countersuit alleging sexual assault - which she has just won.

In court, Taylor Swift's mother, Andrea Swift, said she did not go to police when her daughter first told her she had been groped because: "I did not want this event to define her life."

"I did not want her to have to live through the endless memes and gifs that tabloid media and internet trolls decided to come up with - doctoring the pictures… and making her relive this awful moment over and over again," she said.
...
Taylor Swift's reasons for not going to the police, as told by her mother, who is part of her management team, are revealing. The case highlights how some victims fear being ridiculed, not being believed or not being taken seriously after reporting an alleged sexual assault.


Quote:
The trial showed how some defence lawyers try to undermine the credibility of an alleged victim.

But some of the most potent moments occurred when Taylor Swift refused to let that happen.

At one point, rejecting an accusation that she had misidentified Mueller, she said: "I'm not going to allow you or your client to say I am to blame."


I am quoting parts of the report on Taylor Swift's court case, to hilight the similarities between her case and Dr. Ford's and to suggest that these experiences are not isolated incidents for a lot of women. Trump's attempts to humiliate Ford have certainly worked extremely well, but I suspect that there will be repercussions.

I found Ford's testimony to be a lot more compelling than Kavaugh's, and although one likes to presume innocence in the absence of indisputable evidence (which doesn't include hand-drawn calendars) I found it far more likely that he was lying than that she was.


You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but FWIW I think it is far more likely that she was lying than he was.


Yes, that is Trump's current view.

At the time, I think he called her "a very credible witness" and "very compelling". Can i ask why you are so convinced that she was lying? and that Kavanaughs own description of himself as a moderate drinker was easier to believe?


OK, I’ll bite. Honestly I found her more likeable than him, but that’s not really the point. You need to believe evidence not people, people lie regardless of their gender or how nice they seem.

1. As for the “very credible” stuff. In the first instance people were obviously under instructions to be nice, and to not bully the nice lady. That was a wise tactic. That the position changed after the hearing and investigation is not that surprising.

2. Kavanaugh did not actually describe himself as a “moderate drinker”, just as he didn’t describe himself as a choirboy. That stuff is completely a red herring anyway.

3. Ford offered up several fact witnesses as part of her story, none corroborated her story and arguably her strongest potential witness directly refuted it.

4. Her story changed materially over the duration.

5. The gaps in her story were odd and all too convenient, in that she was oddly specific in some areas and then conveniently blank in others. Almost too perfectly designed to be impossible to disprove.

6. The timing and circumstances of the breaking of the story absolutely stunk. I was willing to believe that she wasn’t part of that and may, indeed, have been a victim of it. Not so sure now.

7. She was surrounded by Democrat operatives, it really does look like they influenced her testimony and it looked coordinated with the other allegations and media coverage.

8. The failure of her team to provide requested information to the committee.

9. She has been subsequently caught in multiple lies. Not contrived ones like those thrown at Kavanaugh, but actually verifiably false statements.

So, on balance, I think it seems more likely that she lied.

Anyway that’s my opinion, I think I’m done talking about this now.

I think you believe what you want to believe.

Certainly, contemporary accounts of Kavanaugh's behavior are more consistent with her testimony than with his.

But again, belittling a woman who has experienced sexual trauma may play well to his base, I can't help but feel that it's counterproductive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40479
zt1903 wrote:

OK, I’ll bite. Honestly I found her more likeable than him, but that’s not really the point. You need to believe evidence not people, people lie regardless of their gender or how nice they seem.

1. As for the “very credible” stuff. In the first instance people were obviously under instructions to be nice, and to not bully the nice lady. That was a wise tactic. That the position changed after the hearing and investigation is not that surprising.

2. Kavanaugh did not actually describe himself as a “moderate drinker”, just as he didn’t describe himself as a choirboy. That stuff is completely a red herring anyway.

3. Ford offered up several fact witnesses as part of her story, none corroborated her story and arguably her strongest potential witness directly refuted it.

4. Her story changed materially over the duration.

5. The gaps in her story were odd and all too convenient, in that she was oddly specific in some areas and then conveniently blank in others. Almost too perfectly designed to be impossible to disprove.

6. The timing and circumstances of the breaking of the story absolutely stunk. I was willing to believe that she wasn’t part of that and may, indeed, have been a victim of it. Not so sure now.

7. She was surrounded by Democrat operatives, it really does look like they influenced her testimony and it looked coordinated with the other allegations and media coverage.

8. The failure of her team to provide requested information to the committee.

9. She has been subsequently caught in multiple lies. Not contrived ones like those thrown at Kavanaugh, but actually verifiably false statements.

So, on balance, I think it seems more likely that she lied.

Anyway that’s my opinion, I think I’m done talking about this now.


That fits nearly perfectly with the ‘revenge for the Clintons’ conspiracy that the emotionally unbalanced frat boy came up with to support his candidacy. Must be true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8534
Fangle wrote:

I seriously have not been following the details of this. I really don't know why the FBI didn't interview the credible witnesses. It seems very remiss and shocking that they didn't. And I do believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, as it is, it seems as if he will be forever tainted in many people's eyes. You cannot prove a negative.

The Wh and the chair of the committee put into place restrictions on the scope of the "investigation" and the time frame. FFS, they didn't even had time to interview Bart O'Kev!!!

Hence, an incomplete investigation that the Orange Shitgibbon, and his lackeys, could gleefully claim showed no corroboration to the allegations, which is sadly true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6229
Check out Trump's latest pot sweetener to the farmers, playing the card before the elections of course, but if/when it actually happens is another story due to legal issues... let's remove the ban on ethanol being used in fuel in summer (because it's not really that polluting) and let the corn based stuff be consumed in greater quantities. Yeah! The corn farmers win!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6562
Hong Kong wrote:
Fangle wrote:

I seriously have not been following the details of this. I really don't know why the FBI didn't interview the credible witnesses. It seems very remiss and shocking that they didn't. And I do believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, as it is, it seems as if he will be forever tainted in many people's eyes. You cannot prove a negative.

The Wh and the chair of the committee put into place restrictions on the scope of the "investigation" and the time frame. FFS, they didn't even had time to interview Bart O'Kev!!!

Hence, an incomplete investigation that the Orange Shitgibbon, and his lackeys, could gleefully claim showed no corroboration to the allegations, which is sadly true.


The FBI did interview the witnessess offered by Ford. What they didn't do was re-interview the 2 principals.

That's because the FBI were not carrying out a criminal investigation. They were providing support and assitance to the Senate comittee which had already interviewed the 2 principals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17008
zzzz wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Fangle wrote:

I seriously have not been following the details of this. I really don't know why the FBI didn't interview the credible witnesses. It seems very remiss and shocking that they didn't. And I do believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, as it is, it seems as if he will be forever tainted in many people's eyes. You cannot prove a negative.

The Wh and the chair of the committee put into place restrictions on the scope of the "investigation" and the time frame. FFS, they didn't even had time to interview Bart O'Kev!!!

Hence, an incomplete investigation that the Orange Shitgibbon, and his lackeys, could gleefully claim showed no corroboration to the allegations, which is sadly true.


The FBI did interview the witnessess offered by Ford. What they didn't do was re-interview the 2 principals.

That's because the FBI were not carrying out a criminal investigation. They were providing support and assitance to the Senate comittee which had already interviewed the 2 principals.

Well, not really.

If, as Trump and ZT have indicated, there were inconsistencies in Dr Ford's testimony, any investigation of the matter would need to examine these.

The fact that they didn't suggests that the right conclusion was reached before the investigation started.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6562
Rinkals wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Fangle wrote:

I seriously have not been following the details of this. I really don't know why the FBI didn't interview the credible witnesses. It seems very remiss and shocking that they didn't. And I do believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, as it is, it seems as if he will be forever tainted in many people's eyes. You cannot prove a negative.

The Wh and the chair of the committee put into place restrictions on the scope of the "investigation" and the time frame. FFS, they didn't even had time to interview Bart O'Kev!!!

Hence, an incomplete investigation that the Orange Shitgibbon, and his lackeys, could gleefully claim showed no corroboration to the allegations, which is sadly true.


The FBI did interview the witnessess offered by Ford. What they didn't do was re-interview the 2 principals.

That's because the FBI were not carrying out a criminal investigation. They were providing support and assitance to the Senate comittee which had already interviewed the 2 principals.

Well, not really.

If, as Trump and ZT have indicated, there were inconsistencies in Dr Ford's testimony, any investigation of the matter would need to examine these.

The fact that they didn't suggests that the right conclusion was reached before the investigation started.


Why would it? The inconsistencies were already identified in the Mitchell report. It was up to the Senators individually what they did with that information.

I repeat, this was not a criminal investigation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
I suppose it's possible that Ford could have provided new and crucial information that she hadn't provided in her previous statements, her letter or during her testimony, so maybe the FBI should have interviewed her. Or she might have changed parts of her story again. Outside of those possibilities she would have only said what she had already said, so maybe it was right that they didn't.

Oddly, she refused to provide a whole lot of other supporting evidence to the Senate, like the actual therapy records.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
Santa wrote:
I suppose it's possible that Ford could have provided new and crucial information that she hadn't provided in her previous statements, her letter or during her testimony, so maybe the FBI should have interviewed her. Or she might have changed parts of her story again. Outside of those possibilities she would have only said what she had already said, so maybe it was right that they didn't.

Oddly, she refused to provide a whole lot of other supporting evidence to the Senate, like the actual therapy records.


CIA SLEEPER AGENT


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9070
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Santa wrote:
I suppose it's possible that Ford could have provided new and crucial information that she hadn't provided in her previous statements, her letter or during her testimony, so maybe the FBI should have interviewed her. Or she might have changed parts of her story again. Outside of those possibilities she would have only said what she had already said, so maybe it was right that they didn't.

Oddly, she refused to provide a whole lot of other supporting evidence to the Senate, like the actual therapy records.


CIA SLEEPER AGENT



Or a reptile.

From another planet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24397
Nah. Just a very dedicated fanatic. Probably mad, as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:27 am 
:roll:


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
Zoot alors!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
eugenius wrote:
:roll:


What do you reckon would have happened had they interviewed her, eugenics? New information or just a reiteration if what was already known.

If new, why do you think she didn't bring it out earlier, like during the testimony?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6562
Santa wrote:
eugenius wrote:
:roll:


What do you reckon would have happened had they interviewed her, eugenics? New information or just a reiteration if what was already known.

If new, why do you think she didn't bring it out earlier, like during the testimony?



If the FBI had subjected her to a full investigation, the same people whining about the FBI being hamstrung would be going ape-shit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24397
zzzz wrote:
Santa wrote:
eugenius wrote:
:roll:


What do you reckon would have happened had they interviewed her, eugenics? New information or just a reiteration if what was already known.

If new, why do you think she didn't bring it out earlier, like during the testimony?



If the FBI had subjected her to a full investigation, the same people whining about the FBI being hamstrung would be going ape-shit.



:lol:

She should be investigated by the police. Period.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5267
Location: Straya cunt
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Santa wrote:
eugenius wrote:
:roll:


What do you reckon would have happened had they interviewed her, eugenics? New information or just a reiteration if what was already known.

If new, why do you think she didn't bring it out earlier, like during the testimony?



If the FBI had subjected her to a full investigation, the same people whining about the FBI being hamstrung would be going ape-shit.



:lol:

She should be investigated by the police. Period.



For? :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7981
Slim 293 wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Santa wrote:
eugenius wrote:
:roll:


What do you reckon would have happened had they interviewed her, eugenics? New information or just a reiteration if what was already known.

If new, why do you think she didn't bring it out earlier, like during the testimony?



If the FBI had subjected her to a full investigation, the same people whining about the FBI being hamstrung would be going ape-shit.



:lol:

She should be investigated by the police. Period.



For? :roll:


He already said...period. Can't trust anything that has them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
Slim 293 wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:

:lol:

She should be investigated by the police. Period.



For? :roll:


If she had been as inconsistent with the FBI as she has been with the Senate she could have been up for 5 years in the pokey for lying to the Feds. So could Kav according to some on here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
Fangle wrote:

I seriously have not been following the details of this. I really don't know why the FBI didn't interview the credible witnesses. It seems very remiss and shocking that they didn't. And I do believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, as it is, it seems as if he will be forever tainted in many people's eyes. You cannot prove a negative.


They managed to interview a total of 9 people, and that didn't include the Kav. CBF or anyone pertaining to the Ramirez allegations. They were given only a week, and were held to an even more restrictive witness list for the first few days. The interview notes, related memoes etc... are all being kept highly classified, and the Senators responsible for assessing the results of the interviews (1000 pages) were given 1 hour each, within a SCIF to go through and make their minds up. As this was not a criminal investigation, the FBI could not include any conclusions or assessments of the investigation, they had to leave that to the politically motivated Senators who had a whole hour to read all that. :?

Now, I've been pretty careful about not saying the Kav is guilty, deserves to go to prison or anything else quite so judgemental, I've really been in favour of a non-partisan investigation early on, as it's been clear that the Senate really aren't up to the task - Feinstein sitting on info, Male GOP senators outsourcing their questioning after insisting that they are the only ones who can be allowed to do it etc... I'm certainly not insisting the Kav be found guilty, just that these credible (yes, even Trump said so) allegations be assessed to the best of their ability.

We may never know the reasons why the FBI investigation shaped up the way it did, thanks to the confidentiality slapped onto it, despite that they've done so in other politically related investigations in the past:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press ... estigation

which leads to a few more questions the US public may have about open government or there being a separate set of rules for the privileged I guess.

I've said so a few times, that the investigation could well have been beneficial for the Kav if done correctly. You say you can't prove a negative, but that isn't really what they needed to do. They may have uncovered some exculpatory evidence (thanks to his calendar maybe???) that may have cleared him, if they'd been able to conduct interviews and re-interviews with both of the main parties or others. And this is what they needed to do.

Anyone thinking the televised circus of them testifying on front of the Senate Judicial Committee was sufficient is an idiot. They had their say, got upset, cried, shouted, waved calendars and showed choir boy appointments, and then had Senators grandstand for their own satisfaction. Yes, the Female Assistant did a half decent job of attempting to question.... one of them. Maybe if actual investigative pros had had a chance, they would've done a whole lot better, not have the witnesses avoid answering the question or posture for the cameras etc... a re-interview would've done a world of good as they'd have the chance inbetween to crosscheck claims, assess statements etc... and see what other leads may crop up.
The Committee aren't investigators, Jeff Flake isn't even a lawyer (although his time in South Africa as a Mormon missionary will no doubt have come in handy) for example. Lawyers don't exactly investigate either, especially not in such a setting. They never want to ask a question they don't already know the answer to, and they're much more interested in making the person they're questioning appear one way or another, rather than actually extract any new information from them at the time. It's quite impressive what a professional investigator can actually do, especially when there aren't 5 minute breaks, TV cameras on them, or political appointees sermonizing in their ears.

Maybe once Mueller finally wraps up his investigation we'll see just what dedicated investigative professionals can do. (Yeah, that'll be tainted by politics too, I'm not that optimistic)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
The measured response to all that baloney from the GOP is:

Get fucked.

You don't lob a grenade in at the 13th hour and get to dictate terms on these things.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24397
Turbogoat wrote:
Fangle wrote:

I seriously have not been following the details of this. I really don't know why the FBI didn't interview the credible witnesses. It seems very remiss and shocking that they didn't. And I do believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, as it is, it seems as if he will be forever tainted in many people's eyes. You cannot prove a negative.


They managed to interview a total of 9 people, and that didn't include the Kav. CBF or anyone pertaining to the Ramirez allegations. They were given only a week, and were held to an even more restrictive witness list for the first few days. The interview notes, related memoes etc... are all being kept highly classified, and the Senators responsible for assessing the results of the interviews (1000 pages) were given 1 hour each, within a SCIF to go through and make their minds up. As this was not a criminal investigation, the FBI could not include any conclusions or assessments of the investigation, they had to leave that to the politically motivated Senators who had a whole hour to read all that. :?

Now, I've been pretty careful about not saying the Kav is guilty, deserves to go to prison or anything else quite so judgemental, I've really been in favour of a non-partisan investigation early on, as it's been clear that the Senate really aren't up to the task - Feinstein sitting on info, Male GOP senators outsourcing their questioning after insisting that they are the only ones who can be allowed to do it etc... I'm certainly not insisting the Kav be found guilty, just that these credible (yes, even Trump said so) allegations be assessed to the best of their ability.

We may never know the reasons why the FBI investigation shaped up the way it did, thanks to the confidentiality slapped onto it, despite that they've done so in other politically related investigations in the past:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press ... estigation

which leads to a few more questions the US public may have about open government or there being a separate set of rules for the privileged I guess.

I've said so a few times, that the investigation could well have been beneficial for the Kav if done correctly. You say you can't prove a negative, but that isn't really what they needed to do. They may have uncovered some exculpatory evidence (thanks to his calendar maybe???) that may have cleared him, if they'd been able to conduct interviews and re-interviews with both of the main parties or others. And this is what they needed to do.

Anyone thinking the televised circus of them testifying on front of the Senate Judicial Committee was sufficient is an idiot. They had their say, got upset, cried, shouted, waved calendars and showed choir boy appointments, and then had Senators grandstand for their own satisfaction. Yes, the Female Assistant did a half decent job of attempting to question.... one of them. Maybe if actual investigative pros had had a chance, they would've done a whole lot better, not have the witnesses avoid answering the question or posture for the cameras etc... a re-interview would've done a world of good as they'd have the chance inbetween to crosscheck claims, assess statements etc... and see what other leads may crop up.
The Committee aren't investigators, Jeff Flake isn't even a lawyer (although his time in South Africa as a Mormon missionary will no doubt have come in handy) for example. Lawyers don't exactly investigate either, especially not in such a setting. They never want to ask a question they don't already know the answer to, and they're much more interested in making the person they're questioning appear one way or another, rather than actually extract any new information from them at the time. It's quite impressive what a professional investigator can actually do, especially when there aren't 5 minute breaks, TV cameras on them, or political appointees sermonizing in their ears.

Maybe once Mueller finally wraps up his investigation we'll see just what dedicated investigative professionals can do. (Yeah, that'll be tainted by politics too, I'm not that optimistic)



Why not just give it to the proper police to investigate, decently ? They have sex crimes units, better than the FBI ..
Why all this show, if the alleged victim is so sore about the whole episode that she insisted on reporting her tragedy to the Senate, and is reportedly readying to move to New Zealand now Kavanaugh has been confirmed...

Edit : Then we will not have to tl:dr all these reams that TG post on here.

Hell, you must ask Soros for a raise, mate, your fingers are probably won down to stubs by now ...


Last edited by Wilson's Toffee on Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24397
Seneca of the Night wrote:
The measured response to all that baloney from the GOP is:

Get fucked.

You don't lob a grenade in at the 13th hour and get to dictate terms on these things.



Aye. Just so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6562
Santa wrote:
Slim 293 wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:

:lol:

She should be investigated by the police. Period.



For? :roll:


If she had been as inconsistent with the FBI as she has been with the Senate she could have been up for 5 years in the pokey for lying to the Feds. So could Kav according to some on here.


There's already potential liability for lying to the Committee.

Also her incosistencies are with earlier versions of her story. It is not w/in her final version.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112544 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2128, 2129, 2130, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2134 ... 2814  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Caley_Red, Chilli, Demilich, FatherTed, Google Adsense [Bot], Lazy Couch potato, mr bungle, MungoMan, Pat the Ex Mat, Wilderbeast, Yourmother and 85 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group