All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[Tami]

I just want to reiterate...

The President of this country got laughed at today on the WORLD Stage.

That is all.

And he'll get laughed again on National TV as soon as the Late Night shows begin.

[Kirby101]

Serious question...

What do you think the proposed investigation uncovers?

While I'm not going to say nothing happened, I am not aware of any folks coming forward to say they are certain that either of the first two accusers are making an accusation that can be proven.

So why even try if we don't know the outcome? Why investigate the allegations at all, we don't want anything else uncovered.

Why do you think the FBI shouldn't investigate.

[numberthirty]

So why even try if we don't know the outcome? Why investigate the allegations at all, we don't want anything else uncovered.

Why do you think the FBI shouldn't investigate.

Not what I think.

What I think is more like "While I do think the FBI should investigate, everything that is out there so far points to that said investigation either: gives the current nominee a reasonable case for that there is no real proof that he did anything./there will be no real conclusion to draw from the information that exists."

Without anything more concrete than what we now know, I am worried that it just gives the nominee an out if he did do something.

[Kirby101]

Not what I think.

What I think is more like "While I do think the FBI should investigate, everything that is out there so far points to that said investigation either: gives the current nominee a reasonable case for that there is no real proof that he did anything./there will be no real conclusion to draw from the information that exists."

Without anything more concrete than what we now know, I am worried that it just gives the nominee an out if he did do something.

"If?"
And you thought Hillary had too much baggage?

But you're good with this guy on the Court?

[numberthirty]

"If?"
And you thought Hillary had too much baggage?

But you're good with this guy on the Court?

Me, personally? I wouldn't say "Good".

As for "If", tell me what you know that is concrete and can be used to prove anything he might have done.

[Mister Mets]

So it's whataboutism now.

But then again you defend your sexual preditor of a President.

Whataboutism is when someone defends a bad action from one side by suggesting something else was equivalent.

I'm not doing that here. I think Joe Biden had a good point on the limits of FBI investigations.

It is worth noting that the George HW Bush White House claimed that the FBI investigation cleared Clarence Thomas.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...05ecb2688fc0f5

So it seems massively hypocritical for the left to suggest that an FBI investigation will get to the bottom of what happened with Kavanaugh and Ford, when they don't trust the results of the one on Justice Thomas.

In the case of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, the situation fell in the FBI's purview, covering a harassment claim between employees of a federal agency. We're dealing with events 30+ years ago involving witnesses who were inebriated, which is much harder to parse out.

It seems more like a delaying tactic, especially since Dianne Feinstein sat on the Ford letter for over a month. Democrats get to benefit from her poor judgement and their leaks to the press which ultimately led to Ford going public when she did, which is self-serving.

There are many other avenues through which this can be investigated and information can come to light. The Times and New Yorker looked into the Ramirez claims. Democrats have budgets to hire investigators. This is a very public story, so any Yale alumni or anyone in the Georgetown Prep area at the time who saw anything should be aware that there's a lot of support if they come forward.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

"If?"
And you thought Hillary had too much baggage?

But you're good with this guy on the Court?

The difference is people had a say on Hillary with their vote. Kavanaugh is getting confirmed regardless. So when 33 thinks Hillary has too much baggage it’s relevant because it informs his vote. All of us could think Ford gives the most credible testimony in history and it won’t matter if Republicans are hellbent on him getting confirmed. I really think without a third party pretty much saying they saw something, he’s getting on the court

[Mister Mets]

The difference is people had a say on Hillary with their vote. Kavanaugh is getting confirmed regardless. So when 33 thinks Hillary has too much baggage it’s relevant because it informs his vote. All of us could think Ford gives the most credible testimony in history and it won’t matter if Republicans are hellbent on him getting confirmed. I really think without a third party pretty much saying they saw something, he’s getting on the court

Is there any third party out there who wouldn't know that their testimony is useful?

[numberthirty]

Is there any third party out there who wouldn't know that their testimony is useful?

Never mind that some of the third parties who have spoken up tend to undercut that second accuser.

[worstblogever]

I'd want at least one credible person who saw something. It doesn't have to be a woman who says they were victimized. It could be someone who saw firsthand what happened to Ramirez.

There are two named accusers that you choose to find "not credible", and Mark Judge will not testify to say that Ford is lying, which would be a pretty easy way to dispel her account, if it wasn't true. There's a third accuser waiting in the wings. Kavanaugh has repeatedly lied in Senate confirmation hearings, and Republicans tried accusing an innocent man of being Kavanaugh's "evil twin" to make this go away.

Yet you find the accusers to be the suspect and "not credible" ones.

We know your party has adopted sexism as a brand, Mets, but come on.

[Mister Mets]

There are two named accusers that you choose to find "not credible", and Mark Judge will not testify to say that Ford is lying, which would be a pretty easy way to dispel her account, if it wasn't true. There's a third accuser waiting in the wings. Kavanaugh has repeatedly lied in Senate confirmation hearings, and Republicans tried accusing an innocent man of being Kavanaugh's "evil twin" to make this go away.

Yet you find the accusers to be the suspect and "not credible" ones.

We know your party has adopted sexism as a brand, Mets, but come on.

I don't think it's up to Kavanaugh to establish innocence, but to his accusers to establish a probability of guilt. It's difficult to prove a negative.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/glenn...pe-murder-hoax

I do want to note that when I'm saying something is "not credible" I'm not saying the person is lying, just that they could be mistaken. We'll have a better sense of what Ford knows, should she testify.

No one involved in the smear on Kavanaugh's "twin" says Kavanaugh asked them to go public with it, although one point on this is that this kind of move would be more likely to be undertaken by someone who thinks Kavanaugh is innocent, and that it's more likely than Ford mixed him up with a specific individual. If we learn that he told Whelan to go public with it, that would be disqualifying.

I did give my reasons for why Ramirez could be wrong. Why should we be convinced that she's clearly right if she were making an accusation against-say-a Democratic candidate for Senate?

[Tami]

At this point, in addition to Ford giving her testimony in some formal setting, I'd want at least one more credible person who saw something to testify to that effect. It doesn't have to be a woman who says they were victimized. It could be someone who saw firsthand what happened to Ramirez.

Ramirez's testimony has some gaps, and it took her a few days to decide that she was certain. Even then, she didn't actually see Kavanaugh expose himself.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...eborah-ramirez

In other words, you agree that the FBI should reopen its' investigation into Kavanugh's background to include these new allegations. That is what everyone who isn't a Congressional Republican or Trump, wants.

[BeastieRunner]

4 people have said they were assaulted by Kavanaugh.

3 people said he was a known partier and a overall terrible human.

2 different people said they were coerced into signing a letter about his character.

2 different people said he was known to get "blackout" drunk.

Another 2 different people said he was a part of, in places with, and privy to assaults on other people.

1 person attested to 1 of the victims good character, and corroborated the accused's poor character.

0 people have corroborated Kavanaugh's stories.

I've seen rape cases with less evidence that got guilty convictions.

Stop with the "but I didn't see it so it's not true" noise.

Also, I hope the irony of the Bill Clinton impeachment law clerk getting tripped up on the definition of sexual intercourse and assault is not getting lost here.

[numberthirty]

4 people have said they were assaulted by Kavanaugh.

2 said they were coerced into signing a letter about his character.

2 different people said he was known to get "blackout" drunk.

Another 2 different people said he was a part of, in places with, and privy to assaults on other people.

1 person attested to 1 of the victims good character, and corroborated the accused's poor character.

0 people have corroborated Kavanaugh's stories.

I've seen rape cases with less evidence that got guilty convictions.

Stop with the "but I didn't see it so it's not true" noise.

Here's the problem...

What you've laid out? Rape cases have also wound up in acquittal on more than what there is here.

Either way, that's not what we are talking about here.

The only thing I could see getting anywhere is something so damning that there would be no way to overlook it and not completely stain your political career as well.

Right now, neither of the women who have come forward seem to be that. Not saying it won't happen just that it is not there right now.

[BeastieRunner]

Here's the problem...

What you've laid out? Rape cases have also wound up in acquittal on more than what there is here.

Either way, that's not what we are talking about here.

The only thing I could see getting anywhere is something so damning that there would be no way to overlook it and not completely stain your political career as well.

Right now, neither of the women who have come forward seem to be that. Not saying it won't happen just that it is not there right now.

Here's the problem ...

With what you laid out?

Best case sceranio, he's a drunk gambler (he admitted to both).

Worst case, a sexual predator (which he denies).

Either way, he lacks good judgment and the moral compass to be on the SCOTUS.

By the way, Ben Shapiro wants his talking points back.