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

[worstblogever]

Feinstein just paused the bulls*** to point out that she actually did not leak a goddamned thing, so the GOP Senators can f*** right off with that paranoid distraction tactic.

Coke to IG.

[InformationGeek]

Ooooh, Kamala is asking him whether not he would like to bring the FBI in by asking the White House. Yes or no. He won't answer, so Kamala takes it as a no. Brett looks pissssed.

[worstblogever]

KAMALA TIME!



And it is SAVAGE.

[numberthirty]

KAMALA TIME!

And it is SAVAGE.

No.

Savage is dragging your office's heels on releasing a man who is most likely sitting in a cell even though he is innocent.

[InformationGeek]

Harris: Do you believe men can be friends with women and treat other women badly?

Kavanaugh: I have many friends who are women!!!


"Did you watch Ford's testimony?"

"No."

Hmmmmmm.



Kennedy: Do you believe in God? Are Ford's claims true? Are any women right about you?

Brett: ...ah, well that's a difficult question and ummm, not true.

[worstblogever]

Sen. Jeff Flake uses his time to call for an end to partisan swipes in this process.

[BeastieRunner]

"Did you watch Ford's testimony?"

"No."

Hmmmmmm.

I liked her FBI and conspiracy queries, too.

[worstblogever]

No.

Savage is dragging your office's heels on releasing a man who is most likely sitting in a cell even though he is innocent.

Oh really?

"Did you watch Ford's testimony?"

"No."

Hmmmmmm.

Seems pretty damning to me that he's remorseless.

[worstblogever]

I liked her FBI and conspiracy queries, too.

"Gorsuch ring a bell bro? You're virtually identical, except that he was never accused of being a drunk who sexually assaulted anyone."

He froze, because her logic was that tight.

[InformationGeek]

It's over! FINALLY!

What have we learned today class?

[BeastieRunner]

I was taught that people that blink a lot when making eye contact and break way to look to their left are great indicators for lying.

[worstblogever]

It's over! FINALLY!

What have we learned today class?

Both parties aren't the same, because only one is taking sexual assault seriously, and the other seems to really hate women.

Also, Kavanaugh demonstrated he has exactly the personality type that fits an angry drunk with issues towards women.

[InformationGeek]

John Cornyn wants a vote as fast as possible so no more "false" allegations come forward. Hmmmm.


Trump weighs in...

Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him. His testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting. Democrats’ search and destroy strategy is disgraceful and this process has been a total sham and effort to delay, obstruct, and resist. The Senate must vote!

Leahy just also compared Kavanaugh testimony to that of Thomas. Damn!

[JCAll]

It's over! FINALLY!

What have we learned today class?

[Mister Mets]

I've often wondered if I was on jury in a criminal trial...which effectively boiled down too one's person's word against another... what I would do if I had a strong conviction accuser was telling truth, and person on trial was fibbing.

Given the level of proof required ("beyond reasonable doubt")...I don't think I could act on that conviction, I would have to argue for a "not guilty" verdict.

You can't...when it's effectively one person's word against another..take the risk of sending an innocent to jail. We all accept that (I think)...but equally we all know it results in a lot of guilty people walking free.

In this case...what level of proof is needed before it can be reasonably concluded that it's not appropriate to appoint Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court Justice? Should criterion for appointing a Supreme Court Judge not be "there are no reasonable grounds to doubt this person's integrity"?

My own gut feeling...it's already passed that point. I may be wrong in that...and certainly open minded to counter argument.

I recall one conservative commentator (I think it was David French) suggesting in a podcast that Kavanaugh should be held to a civil court standard, rather than the criminal standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So instead of deciding whether someone should go to jail, the standard of proof is about whether you'd be comfortable with someone paying restitution. The civil standard is "preponderance of the evidence" which basically comes down to is it more likely than not to be true.

I think that works as a standard. I get the idea that we shouldn't seat a supreme court justice if there's any serious chance they committed a vile act and then lied about it. So, even if you thought the odds were 1 in 4 (meaning his chances of his innocence were 75%) by this standard, it would enough to deny a court seat. I'm worried about going with this approach, since it's going to have more false positives, and is an invitation for fake allegations (I'm not claiming this is the case with Ford, but a potential problem in the future if we lower our standards on proof here.)

The way I've looked it at is whether this high-profile case has corroboration, either witnesses who can attest that they saw Kavanaugh commit a crime, credible victims, or some kind of evidence. So far, there hasn't been enough. This could easily change tomorrow, if someone comes forward who saw what happened to Ramirez (her claim that she heard someone yell that Kavanaugh did it wouldn't be allowed as evidence in court because it's hearsay), that they heard Swetnick's complaints at the time, or were victims of a situation involving Kavanaugh that has yet to be discussed.

An example of credible evidence was the woman who said that Roy Moore hit on her while she was 14, and in court because her mother was in a custody fight. Reporters were able to determine from the records that she was at the courthouse, and that Roy Moore was there at the time as a prosecutor. There's another woman who had Roy Moore write in her yearbook.

Because they've conditioned themselves and their followers to think of every political battle as a "win/lose" situation without any compromise, and don't have the psychological fortitude to access a "loss".

Even if "winning" means putting a rapist on the Supreme Court, or a pedophile in the Senate.

Republicans want a conservative Supreme Court Justice on the court as soon as possible.

Democrats want to delay a vote on a Supreme Court justice as long as possible, especially since there's a chance they take back the Senate in a month and a half.

What compromise have the Democrats offered?

The point is that the Kavanaugh situation demands a thorough FBI investigation -- period.

Regarding your chosen party's racism, sexism, homophobia and denial of climate change, it's just further "proof" that if anything, you're on the alt-right side.

That's just my opinion of course, but it's based on the reality of both the Republican party line and far too many of it's current representatives.

Like Trump.

Until I see better from the party you claim to champion, I don't see much point in engaging in dialogue on the matter as it's an obvious waste of time: no matter what grand ideals you espouse here on this forum, the ugly truth is out there in the White House as we speak.

I've given my thoughts on the limits of the FBI investigation. If you want to engage in what I've said on that, here it is again.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post3923877

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...00#post3924000

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post3925953

How am I alt-right? I don't think it's fair to describe me as more pro-Trump than establishment Republicans. Nor have I supported white supremacists/white nationalists, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, Holocaust deniers, etc.

How does it work? Would he get appointed if he gets one more vote for him than against him? Or does he need a two thirds majority or some such such?

He needs 50 votes plus Pence. It used to be the case that a Supreme Court nominee could be filibustered (meaning they needed 60 votes to get past a filibuster), but that ended during the Gorsuch hearing. If no Democrats were to vote for Kavanaugh, and two Republicans were to say they're not voting for him, the nomination fails.