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

volchitsa

dudara wrote: »

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?

Seems he lied to the House Committee about getting into Yale all on his own work - his grandfather was a Yale alumnus too, so doesn't that make him a legacy student? It certainly makes his statement that he had no connections with Yale a bit odd. To say the least.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/29/1800114/-Kavanaugh-lied-about-getting-into-Yale-by-merit-His-grandfather-was-an-alumn

Seriously, how can someone who lies through their teeth like that be a suitable Supreme Court judge?

dr.fuzzenstein

I think some people post about Trump with their left hand...

edit:

Some more of the man himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWG6jaBFYtU

Jolly Red Giant

Water John wrote: »

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?

I suspect that Swetnick's claims could well end up being investigated - there are growing claims emerging from girls who were students in the DC area prep-schools that Swetnick's claims are accurate. Furthermore, it seems that these claims were also investigated in the 1980s (at least investigated by the local media at the time) - so there will be a paper trail if that is the case.

Jolly Red Giant

volchitsa wrote: »

Seems he lied to the House Committee about getting into Yale all on his own work - his grandfather was a Yale alumnus too, so doesn't that make him a legacy student? It certainly makes his statement that he had no connections with Yale a bit odd. To say the least.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/29/1800114/-Kavanaugh-lied-about-getting-into-Yale-by-merit-His-grandfather-was-an-alumn

Seriously, how can someone who lies through their teeth like that be a suitable Supreme Court judge?

Kavanaugh can't help himself - it's the spoilt brat attitude of the Washington elites

Jolly Red Giant

MadYaker wrote: »

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.

I will preface this by saying that I regard the GOP and the Democrats as two cheeks of the same a*se.

Ford wanted to remain anonymous - the claim that Feinstein was hoping that Kavanaugh would be rejected without the letter becoming public is plausible

MadYaker wrote: »

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.

Not an appropriate way to treat an alleged victim of sexual assault.

MadYaker wrote: »

The statute of lmitations has kicked in so it's not as if she can press charges.

Not the case - there is no statute of limitation on felony sexual assault in the state of Maryland

MadYaker wrote: »

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.

Feinstein sent the letter to the FBI with the agreement of Ford.

MadYaker wrote: »

Last I heard she's received death threats and has to be protected by police.

Actually Ford has had to move house and hire private security.

MadYaker wrote: »

Both the dems utilisation of this and the GOPs response have been a total disgrace.

I agree - but that does not mean that the allegation should have been buried.

The issue could actually have been dealt with if the GOP didn't block the FBI from investigating Ford's allegation. Either the case would have warranted further investigation (in which case Kavanaugh was toast) or they would have reported that they couldn't find anything.

MadYaker wrote: »

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.

Of course both sides are playing politics - the US Supreme court is one of the most political bodies in the world. The US political system is deeply flawed and utterly dysfunctional - and what is going on is just one more manifestation of this.

Specifically in terms of Kavanaugh - what is at stake is whether the GOP want to put a lying toe-rag (with major question marks over his temperament, his drinking, his gambling and his treatment of women - along with a whole host of other issues) onto the Supreme court, purely for political reasons.

SimonTemplar

North Korea is playing Trump like a violin. They sent him a "beautiful letter", no doubt praising him and feeding his narcissism by saying how great he is, and now Trump says he's in love with Kim.

It's absolutely crazy.

MadYaker

I agree that Kavanaugh is clearly unsuitable. I don’t think the accusation should have been buried, I think it should have been raised with the judicial committee back in July and an investigation should have happened then. Do we know why Ford supposedly didn’t want to go public with it back then and instead chose to bring it up now, when this guy is on the verge of being confirmed? I suspect (without any proof) that she was pressured into doing so by Feinstein and the other dems on the committee. From Fords POV this would have been a much less turbulent process for her if it had taken place back in July as opposed to now.

Leroy42

SimonTemplar wrote: »

North Korea is playing Trump like a violin. They sent him a "beautiful letter", no doubt praising him and feeding his narcissism by saying how great he is, and now Trump says he's in love with Kim.

It's absolutely crazy.

They have him exactly where they want him. NK is a continuous claim of success by Trump and his supporters. Hence, he can't really be seen to have it fail at this stage. Therefore NK can afford to hold out on the basis that Trump will pretty much agree to anything to get a deal.

The fact that Trump claims to be in love with Kim is not exactly a tough negotiating position to come from.

Like the 1st summit, Trump will make a 'deal' with NK which will have the GOP and Fox and Trump supporters praising him and calling for Nobel prize etc, yet it will amount to nothing other than a massive climbdown by the US.

Leroy42

For all those saying that Feinstein should have made it public months ago, simply look at how the GOP have tried to bury it. Had this been a few months ago, they would have simply laughed it off, he isnt even the nominee etc.

THe fault isn't the timing, that has just made it more uncomfortable for the GOP. IT needs to be stressed, the GOP themselves do not think that SCOTUS appointments need to be rushed, hence why they stalled on Obama's pick. So the only problem with timing is totally, 100% down to the GOP trying to rush this through prior to the mid-terms.

It is the DNC job to vet the candidates, it is not their job to make things easier for the GOP. The GOP could easily, when they learnt of the allegation, putting the process on hold to investigate. This may have cleared the air around Brett and not forced him into basically prostituting himself at the feet of Trump at the Senate committee. The man lost all dignity. A strong career, reduced to crying and pleading. The man talked about his daughters, how will explain that performance to his daughters when he gets home!

Jolly Red Giant

MadYaker wrote: »

Do we know why Ford supposedly didn’t want to go public with it back then

Doh - look what has happened to her since she went public. She is an alleged victim of sexual assault - no victim of sexual assault wants their name in national headlines.

MadYaker wrote: »

and instead chose to bring it up now, when this guy is on the verge of being confirmed?

She went public because journalists appeared on her doorstep.

MadYaker wrote: »

I suspect (without any proof) that she was pressured into doing so by Feinstein and the other dems on the committee.

Ford complemented Feinstein on how she handled the matter and attempted to protect her anonymity last Thursday.

MadYaker wrote: »

From Fords POV this would have been a much less turbulent process for her if it had taken place back in July as opposed to now.

No guarantee of that - more likely that not the GOP would have tried to bury it just like they tried to bury it when it actually came out.

26000 Elephants

Rhineshark wrote: »

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.

The investigation is a damp squib: Limited scope and not enough time. Anyway, its only being allowed as a means to take the focus from Kavanaugh: He came across very badly at the hearing, very 'unjuducial'. I had an open mind about the accusations at first: the timing was suspect. But he should have simply shown humility without admitting any direct culpability. That would have worked. Instead, he choose the boorish, Trumpian tactic of blustering his way through it, attacking those who's responsibility it is to give these things fair coverage and making an unnecessarily partisan opening statement.. For a guy seeking a SC nomination, thats pretty ironic.

oscarBravo

2 Scoops wrote: »

What can she remember exactly?

Being violently sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. But, by all means, keep talking about the things she can't remember, because that's more important.

Manic Moran

volchitsa wrote: »

dudara wrote: »

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?

Seems he lied to the House Committee about getting into Yale all on his own work - his grandfather was a Yale alumnus too, so doesn't that make him a legacy student? It certainly makes his statement that he had no connections with Yale a bit odd. To say the least.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/29/1800114/-Kavanaugh-lied-about-getting-into-Yale-by-merit-His-grandfather-was-an-alumn

Seriously, how can someone who lies through their teeth like that be a suitable Supreme Court judge?

Doing some quick research, it appears that for Yale, legacy applications only apply in the case of parents, not grandparents (and you still have to be good, the vast majority of applicants still don’t make it). Does the Daily Kos provide any indication that either the policy has been restricted since Kavanaugh time or that his application was weaker than that of the typical student?

Igotadose

Manic Moran wrote: »

Doing some quick research, it appears that for Yale, legacy applications only apply in the case of parents, not grandparents (and you still have to be good, the vast majority of applicants still don’t make it). Does the Daily Kos provide any indication that either the policy has been restricted since Kavanaugh time or that his application was weaker than that of the typical student?

I think the gist of the complaint is Kavanaugh said something about having no ties or whatever to Yale. His grandfather went there. That doesn't get you in to Yale. I think it's a small issue if any at all with what Kavanaugh said, but this is today's hyper-stimulated world we live in.

Captain Obvious

Igotadose wrote: »

I think the gist of the complaint is Kavanaugh said something about having no ties or whatever to Yale. His grandfather went there. That doesn't get you in to Yale. I think it's a small issue if any at all with what Kavanaugh said, but this is today's hyper-stimulated world we live in.

It's just another lie he told.

SimonTemplar

I was reading an article on CNN today and I think it gets to the heart of the matter. If the assault did occur, it is unlikely Kavanagh is actually lying about it. More likely is that he simply has no memory of it due to drunkenness, and deep down, he probably knows this is at least a possibility, hence his reluctance to advocate for a FBI investigation.

And his "little white lies" about never blacking out while drinking or not drinking without memory loss or not drinking on weekdays all try to support his own hope that the assault didn't occur outside of what he can remember.

The fact that Dr. Ford mentioned in her testimony that he was already fairly drunk when they arrived at the party adds credence to this theory.

Leroy42

If it was all simply made up, why would Ford bring a third person into it?

Why would she, the DNC and the Clintons (per Brett) not simply leave it at her and Brett? It would be really simple, and allowing a non-controllable element into the issue for no gain, to simply claim that it was just those two.

It makes no sense to invent a story and give the Kavanaugh side such an advantage. If Judge would state that nothing happened the issue would be pretty much over.

SimonTemplar

Leroy42 wrote: »

If it was all simply made up, why would Ford bring a third person into it?

Why would she, the DNC and the Clintons (per Brett) not simply leave it at her and Brett? It would be really simple, and allowing a non-controllable element into the issue for no gain, to simply claim that it was just those two.

It makes no sense to invent a story and give the Kavanaugh side such an advantage. If Judge would state that nothing happened the issue would be pretty much over.

If the assault didn't happen, I don't believe for a second that the accusation was "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" as Kavanagh mentions. That kind of Alex Jones-esque conspiracy theory peddling alone should raise serious concerns about his suitability for such an important and distinguished lifetime appointment.

SimonTemplar

BTW, I don't know if anyone noticed this but it caught my attention during the broadcast. Look at the photographer behind Dr. Ford's shoulder. He seems pretty stressed out especially when she sits back down, even putting his head in his hands. Looks like he didn't get the shot he wanted:

https://youtu.be/5-N08HKKbno?t=39m41s

RIGOLO

Another success for the Trump administration.
Trudeau has had to eat crow and come to the table, at the last minute. Trump played a game of chicken with him and Canada blinked first .

Bye bye NAFTA , hello the new USMCA trade deal, United States Mexcio Canada Agreement. It will cap Canadaian car imports to the US and will give better access to US Dairy farmers to Canadian market.

Another election promise delivered by Trump .

Canada and US reach deal to replace NAFTA

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/01/us-canada-nafta-trade-talks.html


Add this to the new deal signed last week during the UN meeting with South Korea , bilateral movement on a new US-Japan trade deal , and further EU support for the US position on China... the Trump administration were certainly both busy and effective while the main stream media were lapping up Avenatti and the like.

And all this ontop of 4.2% GDP growth.
And the DOW, S&P and NASDAQ Futures are all up pre-market this morning...US may have lost the Ryder Cup but the TRump administration is winning on every other front.

Roll on November mid-terms, this message will be sure to deliver some votes. And to think some posters think he has lost the Trade war.

volchitsa

Manic Moran wrote: »

Doing some quick research, it appears that for Yale, legacy applications only apply in the case of parents, not grandparents (and you still have to be good, the vast majority of applicants still don’t make it). Does the Daily Kos provide any indication that either the policy has been restricted since Kavanaugh time or that his application was weaker than that of the typical student?

He said "I had no connections with Yale" which was not true. It just seems to exemplify his readiness to be economical with the truth the minute it might avoid any awkwardness for him no matter how slight. Not great for the reputation of SCOTUS,,their judges having so little regard for truth and accuracy.

EDIT: I can't find anywhere that clearly says that grandparents don't count for Yale, and as recently as 2016 College Confidential had questions that seemed to suggest that a grandparent might be enough. Like this one:

zxcvbnm1216
zxcvbnm1216
Registered User
Posts: 246
Junior Member
12-22-2016 at 1:02 am in Yale University
How come on the Yale common app it only lists "Have any of your grandparents ever attended Yale University?" and never asks about parents. I thought this was rather odd. Luckily my grandfather attended there but I thought parent legacy was much more valuable.

(The reply FWIW is that where parents went is asked elsewhere. But why would they ask about grandparents if it's not relevant to anything?)

Manic Moran

volchitsa wrote: »

He said "I had no connections with Yale" which was not true. It just seems to exemplify his readiness to be economical with the truth the minute it might avoid any awkwardness for him no matter how slight. Not great for the reputation of SCOTUS,,their judges having so little regard for truth and accuracy.

EDIT: I can't find anywhere that clearly says that grandparents don't count for Yale, and as recently as 2016 College Confidential had questions that seemed to suggest that a grandparent might be enough. Like this one:

(The reply FWIW is that where parents went is asked elsewhere. But why would they ask about grandparents if it's not relevant to anything?)

My dad went to UCD before I did. I hardly would go about claiming a connection to UCD. Part of the problem is that as a private institution, Yale doesn't need to tell anyone anything. Bearing in mind it's impossible to prove a negative, let alone a secretive one. However, we do have some indicators.

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/09/14/krok-abolish-legacy-admissions/
Yale gives explicit preference to children of its alumni
It would be a bit odd to explicitly state one, but not the other.

This contains an interview with a Yale admissions chap, who references parent, but not grandparent.
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2005/02/16/legacies-still-maintain-edge-in-admissions/

https://blog.prepscholar.com/what-is-a-college-legacy
goes through a list of the major colleges.

It varies. "We get two pieces of information here. First, at Penn, having a grandparent who is an alum will grant you legacy status, where Harvard seems to only care if your parents went there."

Carnegie Mellon is a definite "Grandparents are legacy" and Brown is a "We might give you a second look, but it's not important". Yale doesn't say a thing about it.

However, most any site I can find seems to indicate that in most colleges, even those that state granparental legacy, having a grandparent alumnus doesn't count for a heck of a lot, and any successful applicant would still have to 'work their tail off' in order to be admitted.

This is assuming that Mr Kavanaugh even mentioned it in his admissions process.

To answer your question, I don't know. I will note that the Common Application is... well.. common to 812 universities, including Carnegie Mellon and Brown which, as above, clearly accept grandparental influence. Is it possible they simply do a pro-forma question and replace the name of the college in each one? https://www.commonapp.org/search-colleges .

Honestly, it's been a quarter-century since I applied for Yale... Back in the old-school days of paper and essays. I can't recall the questions, though....

Leroy42

The point is that it is all irrelevant to the issue. What is he trying to achieve by saying he worked his tail off? Yeah, so what, that is what everybody has to do. It doesn't give you bonus points of special privileges.

Great that he worked hard, he was a go getter and made his own way. Good for him. Has nothing to do about whether he should be on the SCOTUS or not or indeed whether is acted in the way that Dr Ford claims.

But what it does do, yet again, is show that he is willing to be economical with the truth. He could just as easily have said that he wanted to go to Yale as it was the No1 law school in the country and to go where his Granddad had gone, but he got no special treatment.

That he didn't, to me anyway, makes no difference really, but I certainly think it adds to the impression that this is a man that feels he is owed this.

One other thing, despite nearluy everyone stating that Dr Ford was a credible witness, many have used the line that it probably happened but it wasn't Brett. Surely the GOP, Kavanaugh etc would want to be doing all they can to help this clearly effected woman to find closure. To track down what happened and help her deal with it.

Yet, and I might have missed it, I haven't heard anyone calling for that. It all centres on how this will effect Brett and how stressed he must be.

RIGOLO

4.2 % GDP
a new Trade deal with Canada and Mexico
new trade deal with South korea
joint US-EU statements on Chinese trade practices
North Korea and South Korea commence removing landmines from their joint border
Market futures are heading once again into record territory
Chinese manufacturing index is down
new US-SINO trade deals in the offing
Record US consumer confidence index

and the best the anti-Trumpers can come up with to land a blow on the administration is the YALE Admissions policy.

Leroy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

and the best the anti-Trumpers can come up with to land a blow on the administration is the YALE Admissions policy.

Yes, that is the only thing anybody has every brought up!

Here is a quick list for Obama

Stopping the biggest recession in history
Shoring up the auto manufacturers and thus savings 100's of 1000's of manufacturing jobs.
Getting Osama Bin Laden, which the GOP led WH failed to do.
Returning growth to the ecomony
Increasing US standing in the rest of the world.
Placing sanctions on Russia
Holding NK to task and not simply letting them off because he liked Kim


And yet I bet you have not got much to say positive about Obama.

The point being that you are taking a very biased view of everything. To you it all seems very black and white, either you are winning or losing. Society, running a country, is far more nuanced than that.

The economy superficially appears to be doing well, but a lot of that is timing, a follow on from Obama, good exchange rates, and of course a massive tax break. 4.2% is being lauded as this amazing result when in fact it was the minimum promised during the debate about the massive tax break. So it is not really anything special, it is being paid for by the citizens. How much is the tax break planned to cost in CT, and what were the growth rates promised to cover for that? CT was cut from 35% to 21%, so almost half, yet growth has only gone to 4.2%?

pixelburp

As with any country, it's how one treats the weakest, poorest, most vulnerable in society that you get a true sense of a place's value:

Migrant Children Moved Under Cover of Darkness to a Texas Tent City:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/migrant-children-tent-city-texas.html

Until now, most undocumented children being held by federal immigration authorities had been housed in private foster homes or shelters, sleeping two or three to a room. They received formal schooling and regular visits with legal representatives assigned to their immigration cases.

But in the rows of sand-colored tents in Tornillo, Tex., children in groups of 20, separated by gender, sleep lined up in bunks. There is no school: The children are given workbooks that they have no obligation to complete. Access to legal services is limited.

The length of time children spend in detention has doubled over the last year, with the numbers of migrant children totalling 15,000 (no mention in the NY if that's including or excluding the 'lost' thousands). And while the original holding facilities were a pox, they provided basic support and schooling; however as these tent cities are complete unregulated, schooling is not required there. So I guess the 3,000 children that have disappeared off the books are the lucky ones? Speaking to anonymous workers, here's a cheery line from the NY article to get you going on a Monday morning:

"In order to avoid escape attempts, the moves are carried out late at night because children will be less likely to try to run away. "

MAGA!

RIGOLO

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, that is the only thing anybody has every brought up!

Here is a quick list for Obama

Stopping the biggest recession in history
Shoring up the auto manufacturers and thus savings 100's of 1000's of manufacturing jobs.
Getting Osama Bin Laden, which the GOP led WH failed to do.
Returning growth to the ecomony
Increasing US standing in the rest of the world.
Placing sanctions on Russia
Holding NK to task and not simply letting them off because he liked Kim


And yet I bet you have not got much to say positive about Obama.

The point being that you are taking a very biased view of everything. To you it all seems very black and white, either you are winning or losing. Society, running a country, is far more nuanced than that.

The economy superficially appears to be doing well, but a lot of that is timing, a follow on from Obama, good exchange rates, and of course a massive tax break. 4.2% is being lauded as this amazing result when in fact it was the minimum promised during the debate about the massive tax break. So it is not really anything special, it is being paid for by the citizens. How much is the tax break planned to cost in CT, and what were the growth rates promised to cover for that? CT was cut from 35% to 21%, so almost half, yet growth has only gone to 4.2%?

Can you put that in the OBAMA Thread .. this is the Donald Trump thread .

Leroy42

It wasn't meant as a post about Obama, it was a comparison to your list, as well you know.

But even ignored that, your first point is about 4.2%. Yet you must accept that this being paid for out of the CT cut, Trump himself promised as much. SO why are you lauding it as a success? It is the absolute minimum requirement. The GOP basically went against all their previous fiscal positions to get it through, 4.2% is nothing recorded breaking in the context of the massive tax giveaway.

Coupled with the reductions in regulations.

Call me Al

A Yale classmate of Judge Kavanaugh's, Chad Ludington, has waded into the nomination debate with his observations of the judge's drinking behaviour as a Yale student by issuing a statement on what he saw.

He says Judge Kavanaugh wasn't telling the truth when he said he never drank excessively, frequently drank too much (and not just beer), and drank so much one night that he ended up in a fight with a friend who landed himself in jail.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-friend-yale-university-charles-chad-ludington-letter-released-2018-09-30/

Captain Obvious

I think it's fairly telling that a Trump supporter will celebrate a deal before any details of the deal are released. The mere fact that the Trump administration can make a deal is cause for celebration. It doesn't actually matter if the deal is good or not. That's how use to his incompetence Trump supporters are.

I mean, it's great that companies and their shareholders are doing well. You can ignore the escalating hate crimes, the children in cages, the people dying because they can't afford medication, education and law enforcement being privatised, the elimination of internet freedom. As long as that dow is going up you can trick people into believing they are better off.