Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

2 Scoops

everlast75 wrote: »

So you accept its not Avenatti's claim then? Good stuff.

Your view on the validity of the claim, or mine, is irrelevant. The FBI should be the ones to make that call. Do you accept that?

Ask stormy Daniels how she is doing since he started representing her? She doesn't seem exploited to me.

Nope. FBI don't draw conclusions or give recommendations, ignoring James Comey.

aloyisious

2 Scoops wrote: »

My opinion is that her claims are not credible, and the NYT's stance on it leads me to believe they agree. My opinion is that Avenatti exploits vulnerable people for power and money. We're allowed to give our own opinions right, or is it only the ones which you agree with?

Just as a matter of interest, do you totally buy into the judge's self-description of himself as in his opening address as a holier-than-thou mass-going catholic schoolboy working all hours and just having a beer when his own calendar and his schoolfriends described him as boofing and having a drink-digestive problem which gave him aggressive inclinations or do you have a sceptical view of him as per doubting what people say?

2 Scoops

aloyisious wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, do you totally buy into the judge's self-description of himself as in his opening address as a holier-than-thou mass-going catholic schoolboy working all hours and just having a beer when his own calendar and his schoolfriends described him as boofing and having a drink-digestive problem which gave him aggressive inclinations or do you have a sceptical view of him as per doubting what people say?

Nope, I don't but that doesn't make him a rapist. I don't find Ford's story credible.

Honest question, do you know if Kavanaugh was named in Ford's therapist sessions? I've seen it written he wasn't but I don't know if that's true or not. It's an important point because that's the only collaboration she's been able to provide.

In the hearing she was asked if she gave them to the Washington post which would have been about 8 weeks ago but she said she couldn't remember.

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

Nope. FBI don't draw conclusions or give recommendations, ignoring James Comey.

You get the point I'm making.

Semantics aside, the FBI should investigate, find the facts and present them.

"You" don't want the the 3rd claim to be investigated because "you" don't like Avenatti and "you" don't think her claim is credible.

It's nothing to do with the facts.

You should just come out and say that.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

So you must believe Kavanaugh lied under oath?

2 Scoops wrote: »

Nope, I don't but that doesn't make him a rapist. I don't find Ford's story credible.
...

elli21

2 Scoops wrote: »

Nope, I don't but that doesn't make him a rapist. I don't find Ford's story credible.

Honest question, do you know if Kavanaugh was named in Ford's therapist sessions? I've seen it written he wasn't but I don't know if that's true or not. It's an important point because that's the only collaboration she's been able to provide.

In the hearing she was asked if she gave them to the Washington post which would have been about 8 weeks ago but she said she couldn't remember.

As far as I can make out Prof Ford never called him a rapist.She talked about judge and Kavanugh...I think she was very honest in saying she was not sure who at the age of fifteen pushed her into that room because she could not see behind her...You know yourself the devil is in the detail...prof Ford gave detail...Kavanugh gave us conspirateies and tales of how his kid's cried over their night prayers.

2 Scoops

everlast75 wrote: »

You get the point I'm making.

Semantics aside, the FBI should investigate, find the facts and present them.

"You" don't want the the 3rd claim to be investigated because "you" don't like Avenatti and "you" don't think her claim is credible.

It's nothing to do with the facts.

You should just come out and say that.

It has everything to do with facts, and there's none to back up any of the claims. There isn't even a inkling of collaboration to suggest any of the accusations are true, in fact those named directly contradict the accusations. The people interviewed and who provided written statements are already under penalty of perjury.

I'm fine with the FBI investigating as I've previously said. I don't think it will change anything ( That's my opinion ).

2 Scoops

elli21 wrote: »

As far as I can make out Prof Ford never called him a rapist.She talked about judge and Kavanugh...I think she was very honest in saying she was not sure who at the age of fifteen pushed her into that room because she could not see behind her...You know yourself the devil is in the detail...prof Ford gave detail...Kavanugh gave us conspirateies and tales of how his kid's cried over their night prayers.

What details did she give exactly? All she did was mask her accusation in even more ambiguity by saying she can't remember who drove her to the party and who drove her home. She can't remember the location, she can't remember the date, she can't remember who drove her 6+ miles there and 6+ miles back. The people she claimed were there all say they have no recollection of the party, her lifelong friend said she has no recollection of ever meeting Kavanaugh. She can't remember if she provided her Therapy notes to the WaPo 8 weeks ago. What can she remember exactly?

At least Kavanaugh provided a calendar of his general whereabouts during that summer, accurate or not, it's far more evidence than Ford has provided.

aloyisious

2 Scoops wrote: »

Nope, I don't but that doesn't make him a rapist. I don't find Ford's story credible.

Honest question, do you know if Kavanaugh was named in Ford's therapist sessions? I've seen it written he wasn't but I don't know if that's true or not. It's an important point because that's the only collaboration she's been able to provide.

In the hearing she was asked if she gave them to the Washington post which would have been about 8 weeks ago but she said she couldn't remember.

Prof Ford did not accuse him of rape. According to what's been written and publicized, she didn't tell her therapist but until both of them decide to release any client privileged medical history documents we won't know. The Prof is said to have told her parents so, if that's true, that could be said to be corroborative evidence.

As for any info she might have given the W/P. I have no idea. The W/P has a pay-for-view firewall. If she replied to the committee on whether she supplied the W/P with any of her personal medical history info, I reckon her reply would be available there for the curious. I reckon the media would also have reported on that as it may probably have broken any journalistic-source privacy agreement she might have made with any W/P journalist/s she might have been in contact with.

Just as a matter of interest, where did the milage distance [6+ miles to/from] the alleged party house come from. if she didn't know where that house is?

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

It has everything to do with facts, and there's none to back up any of the claims. There isn't even a inkling of collaboration to suggest any of the accusations are true, in fact those named directly contradict the accusations. The people interviewed and who provided written statements are already under penalty of perjury.

I'm fine with the FBI investigating as I've previously said. I don't think it will change anything ( That's my opinion ).

You're saying there are no facts to back up the claim, and have formed that view without the claim being investigated. If you can't see the lack of sense in that statement i can't help you.

You're fine with the FBI investigating. On that we can agree. However, that's not what you were insinuating earlier.

2 Scoops

everlast75 wrote: »

You're saying there are no facts to back up the claim, and have formed that view without the claim being investigated. If you can't see the lack of sense in that statement i can't help you.

You're fine with the FBI investigating. On that we can agree. However, that's not what you were insinuating earlier.

What do you think all the written statements under penalty of perjury are for?

I'm not insinuating anything other than that I don't find the accusations at this moment in time to be credible and I suspect some of them at least are politically or financially motivated, let's see in a week after the FBI are done.

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

What do you think all the written statements under penalty of perjury are for?

I'm not insinuating anything other than that I don't find the accusations at this moment in time to be credible and I suspect some of them at least are politically or financially motivated, let's see in a week after the FBI are done.

Again. We can agree to disagree but making a statement and being questioned are two entirely different things.

Let's take this back up next week

2 Scoops

aloyisious wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, where did the milage distance [6+ miles to/from] the alleged party house come from. if she didn't know where that house is?

She claims to know the general area, but not the house in question.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kavanaugh-hearing-live-updates-terrified-emotional-christine-blasey/story?id=58107237

Displaying a map of the distance between her parents' home and the Columbia Country Club in Chevy Chase, Md., Mitchell asked: “We calculated the distance from the closest point to your house from a mile radius of the country club, and then the farthest point. You can see it's 6.2 and of course 8.2 miles. And you've described this as being near the country club, wherever this house was. Is that right?”

“I would describe it as somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that's shown in your picture.”

After confirming that it would be “fair to say” that someone drove her to or from the party, as Mitchell put it, Ford admitted that no one came forward as the person who drove her.

2 Scoops

Trump holding a rally live now, will be interesting to see what he says on the Kavanaugh situation

MadYaker

In July when Feinstein got the letter about the alleged assault from Ford she should have made the judicial committee aware of it at that time instead of sitting on it. At that time she should have also informed Ford that she had two choices, either she went public with it there and then and let an investigation happen, or else she kept quiet about it. The statute of lmitations has kicked in so it's not as if she can press charges. Her keeping quiet about it until after the guy's hearing and then raising it is pure political BS imo and it's hasn't done Ford any favours either. Last I heard she's received death threats and has to be protected by police. Both the dems utilisation of this and the GOPs response have been a total disgrace.

I think it always pays to be cynical especially in politics and imo the only reason they didn't go public with this back in July is because it would have given Trump ample time to vet and choose someone else. Bringing it out now is a last ditch effort to try and stall the nomination until after mid terms when maybe the dems could block it altogether. There's an awful lot at stake here. Trump is replacing a swing vote in the supreme court with a safe conservative vote potentially altering the balance for decades.

qwerty ui op

2 Scoops wrote: »

The people she claimed were there all say they have no recollection of the party,

You have no problem getting this right, yet the nominee for the supreme court in the most important hearing of his life fails to do this. Time and time again he says "the witnesses who were there said it didn't happen"
At one point Booker corrects him and points out what Ms Kaiser actually said and reminds him that she(Kaiser) believes Dr. Ford. Kavanaugh seems to take this on board but moments later reverts back to the false talking point and states again "all four witnesses say it didn't happen"
Apart from all the lies at the hearing, he showed very poor judgement going for the full choirboy image in the Fox news interview. He came across detatched from the real world trying to pull that off. How dump does he actually think regular folk are.
I thought Ms Mitchell was getting somewhere with her questioning and I think the R senators did too, thats why they changed tack and Graham came in with his big outburst. Kavanaugh was actually answering her questions whereas it was all filibuster and lies for the Dems.

StringerBell

Are people still under the impression Ford did not name Kavanaugh before he was the nominee?

Or is it just a tactic to paint her as a political operative in some way? She named him before he was picked, it's not like if another guy on the list had been picked she could have changed her story to say that guy had assaulted her.

Also the performance of Kavanaugh the other day and his repeated lies under oath are enough to disqualify someone from the highest seat of integrity in the land. At least they should be given the guidelines, obviously we are in a new normal these days where it's just about winning. Getting your guy on at all costs.

Neither sure comes out of this will in terms of the politics but surely all can see this man has neither the temperment or the integrity to be worthy of a seat. He has shown himself already to be extremely partisan, how can he pretend to rule justly and impartially when he has raved about conspiracy theories in front of the Senate! His arrogance eminated from the screen. Throw partisan nature of the man is yet another disqualifying feature

RIGOLO

Been a riveting couple of weeks , but Im still looking forward to 2020, with the potential for Brett Kavanuagh Supreme Court Justice to swear in Donald J Trump for his second term, now that would be something.

This is another seismic moment in the evolution of the USA, another occasion where America is confronted by two paths, by a schism of ideology and is being given an opportunity to decide which direction to go. The USA has a long history of power struggles between fundamental ideological beliefs going all the way back to the founding fathers Hamilton (the Federalist) and Jefferson (The Republican) and their opposing viewpoints . This one is playing out in front of the electorate eyes and I welcome that.

Id disagree on the whole ‘circus’ analogy , whilst there have been moments of ‘clownish’ behaviour (Spartucus Booker leaving the room) for the most part the importance of how these events are playing out cannot be over stated. This is not really about Ford V Kavanaugh, it never was, lets face it the plot lines and real adversaries on this are far bigger than that. This current crop of Democrats are expounding how the US will look under their Totalitarian regime whilst the GOP are fighting to retain whats left and true to the founding fathers principles. And for that Lindsay Grahams speech alone was worth going through this whole process, and represented a rallying call.

Whats most important about this event is its showing the electorate what things will be like if this current crop of Dems get back into power. And that is turning off more voters than its wining.
Just like the Senate judiciary committee where the 10 Dems were never going to vote for Kavanaugh and had said so prior, little has changed but at the same time so much has changed.
Elections are not about winning your own party supporters votes, elections are about winning the middle of the road voter, and this episode has done more for the GOP on that front.

Like I said Diane Feinstein is the gift that keeps giving , shes a train wreck and the longer shes at the helm the lower the Democratic party will go. I suppose that’s something to be grateful for to the more than 5 million Californians who want a 90 year old representing them in the Senate, yes a 90 year old their own California Democratic Party didn’t endorse will best represent the state of California.

Main stream media has been caught out once again as the paid shill for the left. Theres been so many of their stories that have been backtracked or pulled its hard to keep track. But I guess if Avenatti is what appeals to the left these days, then the MSM have to trot him out to his fans every so often for a soundbite and some clickbait and to keep the advertising revenue ticking over.

The FBI investigation will rubber stamp the selection of Kavanaugh, but post that 1week investigation there will be further investigations and prosecutions against leftist activists who have attempted to pervert the course of justice.
The cleanup by the Trump Administration of the 8 years of Democratic politicisation of the FBI will pay dividends. There will be no agents running their own personal agendas during this investigation, they all know they cannot get away with that behaviour with the current administration. This investigation will be by the book and given all the evidence and testimony that has been revealed so far I strongly expect it will clear Judge Kavanaughs name.

everlast75

Yeah.

How's North Korea going at the moment?

A few weeks ago, it was a done deal.

Any comment?

Igotadose

As expected, the FBI's limited in what they can investigate, per WH direction: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/white-house-limits-scope-fbi-s-investigation-allegations-against-brett-n915061

Can't investigate the other allegations (Swetnick, Ramirez), can't ask Judge everything they want, etc etc.

dudara

Even if Kavanaugh is cleared by this FBI investigation (and he probably will be, given the lapsed time since the events in question), he is damaged goods.

There are credible, if unprovable, accusations against him which will remain in the public mind, and his demeanor during the past weeks has been unbecoming of the position for which he is nominated.

Ah well, time for the next mess to emerge.

listermint

dudara wrote: »

Even if Kavanaugh is cleared by this FBI investigation (and he probably will be, given the lapsed time since the events in question), he is damaged goods.

There are credible, if unprovable, accusations against him which will remain in the public mind, and his demeanor during the past weeks has been unbecoming of the position for which he is nominated.

Ah well, time for the next mess to emerge.

But the state of Maryland has no such limitations. Just for clarity.

dudara

listermint wrote: »

But the state of Maryland has no such limitations. Just for clarity.

Interesting. But even putting statute of limitations aside, there would still need to be enough evidence to convict him. And given the years that have passed, I don’t believe that will be possible.

It’s a he said / she said situation. She is far more credible than he is, and the other accusations lend her further credence, but it still isn’t a smoking gun against him. That’s why I believe he will be cleared.

But the damage is done. For instance, how can he ever rule on a case involving sexual assault or rape in the future, and not have his judgement questioned?

RIGOLO

everlast75 wrote: »

Yeah.

How's North Korea going at the moment?

A few weeks ago, it was a done deal.

Any comment?

Be so kind as to post up where I ever said it was a 'done deal '

Like all geo-political process of this nature, its a long process with ups and downs, 2 steps forward 1 step back, but always moving forward positively, which it is. Ive been consistent on stating that, check my posts.

The only major update is my NK-USA Summit Commemorative coin arrived the other day whilst I was at the Ryder Cup. And the quotation on it represents the current status.

NEW ERA - NEW LEADERSHIP - NEW DIRECTION - NEW HOPE

NK_USA.jpg

everlast75

The way i see it is the FBI investigation is a little nuetered, but if i were given the option of him being nominated on Friday or a week long investigation such as it is, I woukd have taken the second option.

You have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the Reps. They literally screamed at the dems in rage at their suggestion that there should be an investigation and now there is one, they are saying its absolutely fine about it. Which is it?

Captain Obvious

2 Scoops wrote: »

If I accused you in public of being a gang rapist, would you get mad?

If he was quiet and portrayed no emotion he'd be accused of being cold, callous and emotionless like a sociopath.

Either way he can't win.

I would probably be saddened more than mad. But I'd hope that if I was looking at a nomination to one of the most important judicial roles in the world I'd be able to compose myself. I'd hope I'd know that lying under oath was not a good defence strategy and not a good thing for a USSC nominee to engage in. I'd hope I'd be above blaming this accusation on some Clinton revenge conspiracy. I'd hope I'd be able to show some kind of neutrality, considering the role I'd be taking up.

2 Scoops wrote: »

Nope. FBI don't draw conclusions or give recommendations, ignoring James Comey.

This keeps getting said but nobody has said the FBI will make conclusions. They investigate and present facts. They investigate exculpatory and corroborating evidence. What struck me as unusual from Kavanaugh's answers on Friday is that he kept acting like an investigation wasn't needed because he was there to answer questions right now. I would expect a judge to know that an investigation goes beyong hearing from the accuser and accused.


It's pretty telling, but not surprising, when you look at the restrictions imposed. The most serious accusation with the most evidence is not being investigated. Remember, Mark Judges's ex has said he confessed to her about queueing up to have sex with a drunk girl. So for Kavanaugh to call this accusation "a joke" is extremely telling.

derb12

Igotadose wrote: »

As expected, the FBI's limited in what they can investigate, per WH direction: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/white-house-limits-scope-fbi-s-investigation-allegations-against-brett-n915061

Can't investigate the other allegations (Swetnick, Ramirez), can't ask Judge everything they want, etc etc.

Not according to the man himself


https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1046230634103025664

“NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!”

It’ll be interesting to see what the week brings!

Leroy42

So Trump has said that he is in love with Kim, that the letters that Kim sent him were beautiful.

The greatest negotiator in the world ever has just accepted that he is on the same team as Kim, you want the best for those you love afterall.

If you are NK, imagine seeing that. Their plan has worked perfectly. They are now the great friend of the US and at the same time the US are pushing heavily against China. They have simply swapped one global power being willing to protect them for another (whilst not losing the first).

And back to the Kavanaugh issue. People are giving the WH kudos for finally agreeing to the FBI having an investigation (although the details appear to be much less than people thought at first). So yet again, Trump has been forced to backtrack on his decisions.

The jailing of minors at the border. Steadfastly refused to budge as it was the right thing....until he caved.
Obamacare..Repeal and Replace on Day 1...until he completely gave up and forgot about it.
Kavanaugh..No need for an investigation, ots a witch hunt and Brett has been though enough and I (Trump) 100% stand by him and believe him.....oh this is serious lets get the FBI to look into it.

There are so many examples of this POTUS being totally wrong and having to backtrack. Coupled with his continuous lying, how can anyone have any faith in him at all.

Whatever about anything else he may or not be, the man has a terrible intuition and a total inability to get things done.

And on the hearing itself, I have asked a number of times but 2 Scoops and others have never answered.

Imagine if the performances were the other way around . That Brett had come out solid, open to questions, laying out the facts, not hiding the facts he didn't know and that Dr Ford had come out screaming and shouting and blaming right wing conspiracies. Giving smartalec responses to the GOP senators. What would you're reaction have been? What you have simply accepted that she was angry, under pressure?

No way. You would have written her off as unhinged, a left wing loon. And its that double standard that is the real issue. We can argue all day over what really happened 36 years ago, and what the outcome should be. But there really is no point in any discussion when you are so clearly biased in favour of one side.

Even Trump accepts that after the hearing things have changed, even Trump can see that Dr Ford gave a very credible account and that Brett offered nothing. It is the only explanation as to why he has had the sudden change of heart to allow and FBI investigation, something he was against only 24 hours earlier.

So if Trump can see it, and accept it, why can't you. The fact that Trump is handling this, belatedly, better than some posters here is shameful for those posters.

Rhineshark

Trump isn't particularly handling it better really. The WH made a serious effort to limit the scope as much as possible. Looks like Trump has either bowed to the backlash or had it pointed out that it doesn't work like that and the FBI cannot ignore crimes.

The statute of limitations does exist - I know someone said there wasn't one - (who was It? Kavanaugh?) But it is/was 1 year and in 1982 assault or attempted rape was a misdemeneour. Source - Maryland police dept who released a statement saying they would like to and will investigate any accusations but bear in mind that..etc statute.

Basically what it'd go back to if they can get K on the bench and a suitable case to come up.

Water John

When a poster says he doesn't find Dr. Ford's testimony credible it becomes incredible, considering all the GOP Senators did.
My understanding a day ago is that Ramirez would be included but Swetnick would not. This despite Flake believing all three valid complaints would be.
Maybe Trump didn't want to give Avenattii anything?