Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:21 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 ... 2678  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17373
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
This post was made by Rinkals who is currently on your ignore list

:lol: :lol:

It's actually quite sweet the way you insist on making sure that I know that you are ignoring me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 3:03 pm
Posts: 2482
He hasn’t engaged sexually for twelve
years.
Just wanky posturing online.
Alpha carrying through the online mist.


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

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18090
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.



You probably meant 11th hour but I get your point

#benefitofthedoubt
#whitepriviledge


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17076
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.


Yes, it's a 'fit and proper person' investigation rather than a full on criminal investigation. Which begs the question why people expect a level of evidence commensurate with a criminal trial? Proof of criminality is simply not necessary to make a finding on someone's propriety for office.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17076
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.


What inconsistencies in particular are you talking about here, Santa?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17201
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
BokJock wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:

Feinstein should have her head chopped off. If we can measure a politician by before and after results examine california before Feinstein, after Feinstein. She should have it chopped off in front of the embarcadero and her body dangled from a gibbet from the golden gate.


Hysterical much?


for someone who loves to rail about (rail towards?) gulags, Sen sure likes to fantasise about the public execution of those who hold political views that differ from his...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23038
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Ted. 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.


Yes, it's a 'fit and proper person' investigation rather than a full on criminal investigation. Which begs the question why people expect a level of evidence commensurate with a criminal trial? Proof of criminality is simply not necessary to make a finding on someone's propriety for office.


I can scarcely believe you've posted that.

Why not?

What's happened recently has been basically a glorified job interview. You don't need the same levels of proof to bar you from getting employed as you do for going to gaol


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 12067
For what polls are worth:
Quote:
@kayleighmcenany

The Kavanaugh effect:

-AZ: McSally (R) +6
-TN: Blackburn (R) +8
-NV: Heller (R) +2
-TX: Cruz (R) +6
-ND: Cramer (R) +12

The left's angry mobs have charged up the right!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17201
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
Quote:
We the Polarized
The Hidden Tribes of America - Social scientists and researchers from YouGov, in conjunction with the More in Common initiative, researched the current state of civic life in the United States. Among their major findings:
87% of Americans: "most divided our country has been in my lifetime"
70% frustrated by how "both sides" handled Kavanaugh nomination
But 77% say that "the differences between Americans are not so big that we cannot come together"
And "[they] uncovered a different story, one that probes underneath the issues that polarize Americans, and finds seven groups that are defined by their core beliefs, rather than by their political opinions, race, class or gender." The hope is by calling out and understanding the polarization (and tribalism that underlies it), we can fix it and come together. [more inside]

https://www.metafilter.com/176978/We-the-Polarized

some possible parallels with Aus/NZ/UK/Canadian polities...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
saffer13 wrote:
BokJock wrote:
puku wrote:
Have we riffed on Haley's comment regarding Jared Kushner's hidden genius yet?

Here it is in full view.
Image

Stable genius, hidden genius...what is it about this family?


Jared in full Chad uniform

You know those soldiers are laughing at that preppy fella :lol:


The chances that some 19yr old soldier accidentally put his duct tape name tag on hat low on his body armour, then accidentally placed the side velcro to accidentally cover the last syllable of his name to accidentally label him 'Kush' is precisely zero.

#420


Wonder if they managed to keep a straight face, putting the carrier on over his blazer, and probably advising him to take off his belt to avoid it pinching under the plates?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32786
Location: in transit
That's almost the most maximum Chad thing I've ever seen. I did see a pic the other day of a Brad and Chad convention...

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17076
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Ted. 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.


Yes, it's a 'fit and proper person' investigation rather than a full on criminal investigation. Which begs the question why people expect a level of evidence commensurate with a criminal trial? Proof of criminality is simply not necessary to make a finding on someone's propriety for office.


I can scarcely believe you've posted that.


What's your problem then? Come on, out with it, and none of your usually pissing around either.

Edit: And wot HH said, but I can scarcely believe that had to be spelt out for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40661
Talking about pissing, seems these are popping up in various locations in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17076
Kiwias wrote:
Talking about pissing, seems these are popping up in various locations in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

Image


Set it on fire to stop people peeing on him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9486
happyhooker wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Ted. wrote:

Yes, it's a 'fit and proper person' investigation rather than a full on criminal investigation. Which begs the question why people expect a level of evidence commensurate with a criminal trial? Proof of criminality is simply not necessary to make a finding on someone's propriety for office.


I can scarcely believe you've posted that.

Why not?

What's happened recently has been basically a glorified job interview. You don't need the same levels of proof to bar you from getting employed as you do for going to gaol


What level of proof do you think? Because in this case we have an allegation with absolutely zero corroborating proof. Is that the right level or should it be higher? Or lower?

And if there needs to be an investigation how intensive should it be if a) there's no immediate or obvious corroborating evidence, b) on a cursory examination there's no corroborating evidence, c) after an initial 'investigation' in which the most proximal witnesses provide no corroborating evidence? Should they keep investigating?


Last edited by Santa on Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
Santa wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Ted. wrote:

Yes, it's a 'fit and proper person' investigation rather than a full on criminal investigation. Which begs the question why people expect a level of evidence commensurate with a criminal trial? Proof of criminality is simply not necessary to make a finding on someone's propriety for office.


I can scarcely believe you've posted that.

Why not?

What's happened recently has been basically a glorified job interview. You don't need the same levels of proof to bar you from getting employed as you do for going to gaol


What level of proof do you think? Because in this case we have an allegation with absolutely zero corroborating proof. Is that the right level or should it be high? Or lower?

And if there needs to be an investigation how intensive should it be if a) there's no immediate or obvious corroborating evidence, b) on a cursory examination there's no corroborating evidence, c) after an initial 'investigation' in which the most proximal witnesses provide no corroborating evidence? Should they keep investigating?


At least keep investigating to the point of interviewing the people directly involved? That would be considered standard, yes. Follow up interviews as required? Yes.
But that's only if you want a genuine attempt to investigate the issue correctly.

If all you want is political window dressing to provide the illusion of due diligence so as to assuage the conscience of the more moderate people in your political organization, then no.

It all depends on deeply invested you are in your political outlook and how much you're prepared to ignore to achieve it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9486
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
Seneca of the Night wrote:

And we're off... Back to your hobby horse.


Well, he was asking actual questions, I'm simply answering them for him. Take it up with your cheerleader if you want to move on, it's a dead topic now I quite agree, and there's not much to be gained from rehashing the same topics other than clear up a little confusion for Santa.

At least nobody is threatening to throw Kavanaugh in the Gulag or chop his head off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9486
I mean I suppose it's possible that Ford has a cumstained bathing suit sitting in her draw and she's just waiting for someone to ask her about it but nobody will so she can't bring it into evidence. I suppose that's possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:

And we're off... Back to your hobby horse.


Well, he was asking actual questions, I'm simply answering them for him. Take it up with your cheerleader if you want to move on, it's a dead topic now I quite agree, and there's not much to be gained from rehashing the same topics other than clear up a little confusion for Santa.

At least nobody is threatening to throw Kavanaugh in the Gulag or chop his head off.


Apart from that Georgetown u professor who wanted to castrate him and roast his testicles over a wicca camp fire.


I was referring to PR, not the rantings of people on twitter that you're poring over looking for things to be outraged about. There are plenty of people on both sides of the issue covering themselves in that kind of glory out on the twitterverse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
Santa wrote:
I mean I suppose it's possible that Ford has a cumstained bathing suit sitting in her draw and she's just waiting for someone to ask her about it but nobody will so she can't bring it into evidence. I suppose that's possible.


Does taking things to a ridiculous extreme help rationalize your more petulant arguments?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


It was sufficient in that it's all they could do given her evidence (none).

Be interesting to see what Colombo could do traipsing around Maryland in his dirty mac tricking a bunch of Chads into giving the game away I suppose. But I think he'd be struggling.


Demanding a 15yr old girl produce more substantial evidence before bothering with her allegations may well be the reason women wait for 35 years before coming forward about being sexually assaulted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9486
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


It was sufficient in that it's all they could do given her evidence (none).

Be interesting to see what Colombo could do traipsing around Maryland in his dirty mac tricking a bunch of Chads into giving the game away I suppose. But I think he'd be struggling.


Maybe people think she would give different evidence if questioned by the FBI instead of the committee. If she did that would be weird.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
Santa wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


It was sufficient in that it's all they could do given her evidence (none).

Be interesting to see what Colombo could do traipsing around Maryland in his dirty mac tricking a bunch of Chads into giving the game away I suppose. But I think he'd be struggling.


Maybe people think she would give different evidence if questioned by the FBI instead of the committee. If she did that would be weird.



It's quite interesting to see how people react to having a well rehearsed story being questioned. A good, experienced investigator can get a lot more out of someone than a politician grandstanding for the cameras.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
I mean I suppose it's possible that Ford has a cumstained bathing suit sitting in her draw and she's just waiting for someone to ask her about it but nobody will so she can't bring it into evidence. I suppose that's possible.


Does taking things to a ridiculous extreme help rationalize your more petulant arguments?


It's the best rhetorical trick available for dealing with you guys who are, let's face it, as they said in ancient Greece a little bit more mythos than logos.


It demonstrates quite nicely how you and your cheerleader are unable to actually respond to what has been posted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17076
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:

What's your problem then? Come on, out with it, and none of your usually pissing around either.

Edit: And wot HH said, but I can scarcely believe that had to be spelt out for you.


I've read what you and hh have written several times and concluded I must be missing something. You cant just accuse someone of a criminal act without necessary evidence and cost them a job. Imagine what kind of world that would be - maybe we are finding out. I guess I've misunderstood what you're saying.


It's fitness and propriety to hold the post. That doesn't just stop at criminal accusations. Nor am I saying that necessarily forfeits the Kav as a fit candidate for the job. It's merely an observation for those that are wetting their knickers of criminal level proof. It is not necessary.

It's part and parcel of a flawed system, IMO. Having a politicised judiciary is very risky from the POV that the judiciary should never be beholding to the lawmakers (who are beholding to lobby groups and vested interests). Lawmakers should not be interpreting the law and the judiciary should not be interpreting the political winds (societies, yes).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
Seneca of the Night wrote:
You mean could get more 'non-evidence' out of her?


That's almost on the right track. She may trip herself up, and actually exonerate Kavanaugh much more likely than she would provide the killer detail that leads to him being charged and convicted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
Ted. wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:

What's your problem then? Come on, out with it, and none of your usually pissing around either.

Edit: And wot HH said, but I can scarcely believe that had to be spelt out for you.


I've read what you and hh have written several times and concluded I must be missing something. You cant just accuse someone of a criminal act without necessary evidence and cost them a job. Imagine what kind of world that would be - maybe we are finding out. I guess I've misunderstood what you're saying.


It's fitness and propriety to hold the post. That doesn't just stop at criminal accusations. Nor am I saying that necessarily forfeits the Kav as a fit candidate for the job. It's merely an observation for those that are wetting their knickers of criminal level proof. It is not necessary.

It's part and parcel of a flawed system, IMO. Having a politicised judiciary is very risky from the POV that the judiciary should never be beholding to the lawmakers (who are beholding to lobby groups and vested interests). Lawmakers should not be interpreting the law and the judiciary should not be interpreting the political winds (societies, yes).


It's why going back to the 60 vote majority for SCOTUS confirmations might actually be a good thing. Instead of decisions being made strictly along party lines, that allows them to go completely off the rails (yes, I know 2 senators crossed the floor), they'd have to be a lot more bi-partisan, both the nominations and the proceedings.
It'd take the toxic binary politics down a notch, you'd hope.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17373
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.

To be honest, I'm a little reluctant to call people idiots here, not least because I don't regard myself as particularly intelligent, but that conclusion is pretty well inescapable.

I suppose if you continue to present President Trump as some kind 4D chess playing mastermind in the face of mounting evidence that he is a celebrity crook with a mind too weak to comprehend a lot of what is going on around him, then I suppose it's inevitable that your intellectual credibility is going to take a hit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17373
Santa wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


It was sufficient in that it's all they could do given her evidence (none).

Be interesting to see what Colombo could do traipsing around Maryland in his dirty mac tricking a bunch of Chads into giving the game away I suppose. But I think he'd be struggling.


Maybe people think she would give different evidence if questioned by the FBI instead of the committee. If she did that would be weird.

No, but the inconsistencies that ZT claims are in her testimony could be examined.

And the same for Kavanaugh.

One can easily see why this wasn't allowed to happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24432
Ted. wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:

What's your problem then? Come on, out with it, and none of your usually pissing around either.

Edit: And wot HH said, but I can scarcely believe that had to be spelt out for you.


I've read what you and hh have written several times and concluded I must be missing something. You cant just accuse someone of a criminal act without necessary evidence and cost them a job. Imagine what kind of world that would be - maybe we are finding out. I guess I've misunderstood what you're saying.


It's fitness and propriety to hold the post. That doesn't just stop at criminal accusations. Nor am I saying that necessarily forfeits the Kav as a fit candidate for the job. It's merely an observation for those that are wetting their knickers of criminal level proof. It is not necessary.

It's part and parcel of a flawed system, IMO. Having a politicised judiciary is very risky from the POV that the judiciary should never be beholding to the lawmakers (who are beholding to lobby groups and vested interests). Lawmakers should not be interpreting the law and the judiciary should not be interpreting the political winds (societies, yes).



I agree on the bolded. Yet politics ARE the management of a society/group of societies - a rule set that is very dynamic and WILL change.
Judiciary must be on their toes and keep that in account. As lawmakers must be aware of legal constraints on their newest fandangos.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3792
Santa wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Ted. wrote:

Yes, it's a 'fit and proper person' investigation rather than a full on criminal investigation. Which begs the question why people expect a level of evidence commensurate with a criminal trial? Proof of criminality is simply not necessary to make a finding on someone's propriety for office.


I can scarcely believe you've posted that.

Why not?

What's happened recently has been basically a glorified job interview. You don't need the same levels of proof to bar you from getting employed as you do for going to gaol


What level of proof do you think? Because in this case we have an allegation with absolutely zero corroborating proof. Is that the right level or should it be higher? Or lower?

And if there needs to be an investigation how intensive should it be if a) there's no immediate or obvious corroborating evidence, b) on a cursory examination there's no corroborating evidence, c) after an initial 'investigation' in which the most proximal witnesses provide no corroborating evidence? Should they keep investigating?


Was this copied and pasted from a PR consultant's pitch to the Catholic Church?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9486
Rinkals wrote:
Santa wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


It was sufficient in that it's all they could do given her evidence (none).

Be interesting to see what Colombo could do traipsing around Maryland in his dirty mac tricking a bunch of Chads into giving the game away I suppose. But I think he'd be struggling.


Maybe people think she would give different evidence if questioned by the FBI instead of the committee. If she did that would be weird.

No, but the inconsistencies that ZT claims are in her testimony could be examined.

And the same for Kavanaugh.

One can easily see why this wasn't allowed to happen.


They are largely inconsistencies between her testimony and previous claims she has made, between different claims she has made outside her testimony, or between her testimony and other evidence that she has refused to provide (e.g. the original therapist notes).

Really you should have a basic understanding of the situation before you go wailing in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9486
Quote:
FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate on Wednesday that the White House put limits on the re-opened investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, but the law enforcement chief insisted that the process used was a typical one.

"Our supplemental update to the previous background investigation was limited in scope and that ... is consistent with the standard process for such investigations going back a long ways," Wray said under questioning by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on global security threats.


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/ ... mit-888667


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17373
Santa wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Santa wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


It was sufficient in that it's all they could do given her evidence (none).

Be interesting to see what Colombo could do traipsing around Maryland in his dirty mac tricking a bunch of Chads into giving the game away I suppose. But I think he'd be struggling.


Maybe people think she would give different evidence if questioned by the FBI instead of the committee. If she did that would be weird.

No, but the inconsistencies that ZT claims are in her testimony could be examined.

And the same for Kavanaugh.

One can easily see why this wasn't allowed to happen.


They are largely inconsistencies between her testimony and previous claims she has made, between different claims she has made outside her testimony, or between her testimony and other evidence that she has refused to provide (e.g. the original therapist notes).

Really you should have a basic understanding of the situation before you go wailing in.

Very odd response, but entirely expected.

Seriously? you think that the notes taken by a therapist on the ordeal of a sexual violence survivor should be opened up for the gratification of the public? Personally, I can see every reason why she wouldn't want that, even if you can't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24432
Are the anti-Trumpers on here trying to suggest that the FBI is partisan, less than totally independent, in this Kavanaugh matter ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
Santa wrote:
Quote:
FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate on Wednesday that the White House put limits on the re-opened investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, but the law enforcement chief insisted that the process used was a typical one.

"Our supplemental update to the previous background investigation was limited in scope and that ... is consistent with the standard process for such investigations going back a long ways," Wray said under questioning by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on global security threats.


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/ ... mit-888667


Burying the lead just a tad.

Headline:
FBI's Wray confirms White House limited Kavanaugh probe


Quote:
later adding that the inquiry was "very specific in scope—limited in scope."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9486
Rinkals wrote:
Santa wrote:

They are largely inconsistencies between her testimony and previous claims she has made, between different claims she has made outside her testimony, or between her testimony and other evidence that she has refused to provide (e.g. the original therapist notes).

Really you should have a basic understanding of the situation before you go wailing in.

Very odd response, but entirely expected.

Seriously? you think that the notes taken by a therapist on the ordeal of a sexual violence survivor should be opened up for the gratification of the public? Personally, I can see every reason why she wouldn't want that, even if you can't.


Yes. Yes I do think they should be opened up to the general public, as I clearly stated above.

But failing that ideal situation perhaps they could be turned over for private examination by the body that is investigating the allegations. This seems a sensible compromise from my original and quite clear proposal to publicise the records because the allegator has cited them as corroborating evidence.

Alternatively we could go full #metoo and a) believe the initial allegation because she made it and she's a woman, and b) believe her summary of the independent associated evidence because she's a woman.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24432
Santa wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Santa wrote:

They are largely inconsistencies between her testimony and previous claims she has made, between different claims she has made outside her testimony, or between her testimony and other evidence that she has refused to provide (e.g. the original therapist notes).

Really you should have a basic understanding of the situation before you go wailing in.

Very odd response, but entirely expected.

Seriously? you think that the notes taken by a therapist on the ordeal of a sexual violence survivor should be opened up for the gratification of the public? Personally, I can see every reason why she wouldn't want that, even if you can't.


Yes. Yes I do think they should be opened up to the general public, as I clearly stated above.

But failing that ideal situation perhaps they could be turned over for private examination by the body that is investigating the allegations. This seems a sensible compromise from my original and quite clear proposal to publicise the records because the allegator has cited them as corroborating evidence.

Alternatively we could go full #metoo and a) believe the initial allegation because she made it and she's a woman, and b) believe her summary of the independent associated evidence because she's a woman.


The complainant has opened up on lots of personal stuff, to garner sympathy I guess. And she is an expert on railroading systems, has already written on it. Do not know what her "medical" notes might suggest, I would not trust them ...
However, her general testimony is also sadly lacking in detail, accuracy and conviction. Cannot see what she can add if not solid evidence (except her "word", which I find very insufficient) .


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 ... 2678  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], HouseOfPane, Mr Mike and 23 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