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

everlast75

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

That's why I asked my questions assuming he would not get on the court. I think all the people who believe Swetnick will forget very fast what an unholy mess she unleashed on him once the politicking is done with. Add to that a completely anonymous allegation blasted by the press. And the allegation whose victim refuted it (his ex-girlfriend).
I think by christmas, only Ford's allegation will still potentially be ambiguous, with no date time or place that's understandable but the very light weight of testimony is on Kavanaugh's side at the moment. Only Ford is even sure she saw Kavanaugh doing anything criminal. That's mad when you think how much has been claimed.

I'll be honest with you.

I have not made my mind up on Rameriz or Swetnick as I haven't seen them testify under oath. I haven't even been reading deeply into what they allege, as to me at this stage, they are merely allegations.

I would instead render my opinion upon completion of a proper and thorough investigation by the FBI. Whether that will occur or not is not yet clear.

I understand that mud can stick but again, when you try and ram through a nomination and have to be shamed into allowing a limited investigation, compounded by lies under oath, it does not do you any favours.

swampgas

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Only Ford is even sure she saw Kavanaugh doing anything criminal.

The whole world watched as he perjured himself, claiming that he didn't drink, was a virgin, etc. ad nauseum. Isn't that criminal enough, all by itself?

He perjured himself while being grilled to see if he was up to the job. Think about that for a minute, maybe?

.

Quin_Dub

swampgas wrote: »

The whole world watched as he perjured himself, claiming that he didn't drink, was a virgin, etc. ad nauseum. Isn't that criminal enough, all by itself?

He perjured himself while being grilled to see if he was up the job. Think about that for a minute, maybe?

This should be the beginning middle and end of it all.

He was put under pressure by allegations (which may or may not be true) and his solution was to clearly and repeatedly lie under oath to a Senate committee to try to paint a more positive image of himself.

Everything else should be irrelevant now - He lied in the Fox Interview , he lied at the hearing and has continued to lie every day since.

That's the only issue that's relevant to his possible elevation to the Supreme court - He should not get the seat because he is a liar.

If after a duly diligent FBI investigation he is found guilty of any crimes that are not subject to a statute of limitations he should be charged with them..

But even if if found to be not guilty of any historical crime as currently accused he is unequivocally guilty of lying under oath..

Call Me Jimmy

prawnsambo wrote: »

This is not one bit unique in sexual assault cases.

Not sure I follow, what is not unique?

Pelvis

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Not sure I follow, what is not unique?

Potential rapists don't really like an audience.

mcmoustache

swampgas wrote: »

The whole world watched as he perjured himself, claiming that he didn't drink, was a virgin, etc. ad nauseum. Isn't that criminal enough, all by itself?

He perjured himself while being grilled to see if he was up the job. Think about that for a minute, maybe?

I'm not sure how people still aren't getting this. Some of his testimony was even contradicted by Brett, AKA Bart Kavanaugh himself.

Water John

Jimmy it's quite established that sexual assault victims remember specific details whilst the rest of the memories fade away. That is what is a key element in sexual assaults.
Dr. Ford's testimony fits that narrative precisely. If she was lying it would be a complete narrative, without gaps and a third party would definitely not been present.

SimonTemplar

Water John wrote: »

Jimmy it's quite established that sexual assault victims remember specific details whilst the rest of the memories fade away. That is what is a key element in sexual assaults.
Dr. Ford's testimony fits that narrative precisely. If she was lying it would be a complete narrative, without gaps and a third party would definitely not been present.

Exactly, and that's what made Trump's mocking of her lack of contextual details about the event even more egregious.

He even mentioned in that rally that she didn't know if it was upstairs or downstairs but she was 100% clear in her testimony multiple times that it was upstairs.

Normally, this alone should raise questions about Trump's fitness for office, and it would be a major scandal for a normal president, but it is just lost in the perpetual sh*tshow.

Call Me Jimmy

Water John wrote: »

Jimmy it's quite established that sexual assault victims remember specific details whilst the rest of the memories fade away. That is what is a key element in sexual assaults.
Dr. Ford's testimony fits that narrative precisely. If she was lying it would be a complete narrative, without gaps and a third party would definitely not been present.

I meant it's mad only Ford knows it was him who sexually assaulted her. I understand forgetting details but I didn't think others would not be able to say that he assaulted them. Swetnick walked back from her implication that he was present during the rape to he was 'at the party' where she was raped.

Point being, we've had what 5 or 6 accusations about assaults but only one has a memory of him assaulting her.

Professor Moriarty

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I meant it's mad only Ford knows it was him who sexually assaulted her. I understand forgetting details but I didn't think others would not be able to say that he assaulted them. Swetnick walked back from her implication that he was present during the rape to he was 'at the party' where she was raped. That is a bit too cunning to be drug-related.

Point being, we've had what 5 or 6 accusations about assaults but only one has a memory of him assaulting her.

What other witnesses do or don't do has nothing whatsoever to do with Ford's testimony. Any rational human being would look at her and ask themselves; why is she doing this to herself and her family? She's obviously not insane. She's obviously not stupid. She's educated. She doesn't need the money. She obviously doesn't want the 'fame'.

Personally, she has nothing at all to gain from testifying. Any rational human being would come to the conclusion that she is telling the truth as she believes it to be.

SimonTemplar

I'm still of the opinion that Kavanagh simply doesn't remember the assault and in his view, that means it didn't happen.

Itssoeasy

Paddy OFurniture wrote: »

I'm always amazed at how obsessed some are with American politics and completely missing the whole point of Pres. Trump. He's the first person in decades to listen to the concerns of a large group of people in the US. He was a snub to the know-it-all Democrats and career politicians. I personally think this salivating over the possibility of America tanking is sick.

Who's obsessed with American politics ? I personally have an interest in it because what happens in America has an impact around the world to varying degrees and also because of the at times utter bizarre precedents and rules.

Except he isn't listening to the concerns of large groups of people. He's playing on the fears of people and blaming others for the problems of his base. What policies has he implemented that will positively and long term help large parts of the country ? The tax cut won't help long term from what I can see.

The know it all democrats and career politicians ? So the democrats are the know it alls only is it ? If you listen to people from both parties there are some fairly big know it alls in the GOP also.

Name one poster who from the last three and a half threads on Donald trump have expressed a wish for America to tank ? No one is wishing that.

Quin_Dub

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I'm still of the opinion that Kavanagh simply doesn't remember the assault and in his view, that means it didn't happen.

I think the issue is that he's concerned that that might be the case which is what fueled the vehement denials of ever being incoherently drunk , which is where he is now (or at least should be) in trouble as those statements have been repeatedly refuted by multiple statements from friends and college room-mates and expose him to perjury charges.

swampgas

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I'm still of the opinion that Kavanagh simply doesn't remember the assault and in his view, that means it didn't happen.

It's also possible that this was common behaviour for him and his friends at the time, so he may have no idea which of the (many?) assaults he was involved in was the specific incident being reported by Christine Blasey Ford.

Water John

Basically, it was so immaterial to him and so profound for her.

Calina

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Water John wrote: »

Jimmy it's quite established that sexual assault victims remember specific details whilst the rest of the memories fade away. That is what is a key element in sexual assaults.
Dr. Ford's testimony fits that narrative precisely. If she was lying it would be a complete narrative, without gaps and a third party would definitely not been present.

I meant it's mad only Ford knows it was him who sexually assaulted her. I understand forgetting details but I didn't think others would not be able to say that he assaulted them.

How many times have you been sexually assaulted? You don't know this because almost 80% of people who were sexually assaultwd do not come forward. Why would they? Their lives get destroyed all over again. Very often there is no corroborrating evidence because their can't be. You want eye witnesses. How likely do you think that is? How many other victims does a rapist have to have before we start thinking you know, maybe the guy might be lying when he says he did nothing wrong? One man gets believed. But it took over 100 for people to start believing women and girls who complained about Larry Nassar.

And all that before you review Kavanaugh's behaviour in his hearing last week. Sexual assault claim aside, his behaviour is not acceptable for a judge. Not the drinking but the fact that the truthfulness of his responses is being seriously called into question.

Jolly Red Giant

swampgas wrote: »

It's also possible that this was common behaviour for him and his friends at the time, so he may have no idea which of the (many?) assaults he was involved in was the specific incident being reported by Christine Blasey Ford.

Kavanaugh may believe that his behaviour was normal and acceptable (in his drunken stupor)

swampgas

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Kavanaugh may believe that his behaviour was normal and acceptable (in his drunken stupor)

As indeed may Trump, and many of the older male Republicans in government. (Regardless of being drunk too.)

Duck Soup

Was just listening to the Huckabee Sanders press briefing. She denied again and again and again that Trump was mocking Dr Ford during his rally speech last night in Mississippi.

I'd say it's unbelievable what this administration is doing, but it's not. It's predictable and disheartening. But for me, this is the lowest point yet for American national discourse. Mocking, stupid, hate-laced and pandering.

If Kavanaugh gets the nod for the Supreme Court, I hope it creates a blue tidal wave that washes away Republican control in Congress. After that, with time no object, a Democrat majority can launch inquiry after inquiry into Kavanaugh's background, accusations and public misstatements.

You know. Like the Republicans did with Benghazi. Good for the goose and all that.

Water John

Trump says that the only thing she actually remembers is that, she had one beer.

How low can you go?

serfboard

relax carry on wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45727618

From that article:

Donald Trump wrote:

very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of

Pity he didn't think like that when he alleged that the Central Park Five were guilty - even after they had been exonerated.

But then, they were people of colour, so they must have been guilty, even if DNA had proven that they were not.

spacecoyote

https://twitter.com/laurayokwe/status/1047536789194330112

Lindsey Graham doubles down on Trumps Ford atracks. pretty repulsive stuff

SimonTemplar

spacecoyote wrote: »

https://twitter.com/laurayokwe/status/1047536789194330112

Lindsey Graham doubles down on Trumps Ford atracks. pretty repulsive stuff

That Yahoo News tweet has since been deleted. I think they misquoted him:


https://freebeacon.com/politics/yahoo-news-tweet-misquotes-lindsey-graham-invent-sexist-attack/

Leroy42

It has, and his supporters attempt to cover for him, parallels with the time he mocked the disabled reporter.

This proves, not that it needed further proof, that Trump was indeed mocking the reporter just as he was mocking Dr Ford.

I trust all those that attempted to cover for him then feel suitably embarrassed to have been, not only proven totally wrong, but have played their part in normalising his behaviour and thus must take some responsibility for the hurt and anger that Dr Ford and the many women sexually assaulted and never believed are feeling

everlast75

Water John wrote: »

Trump says that the only thing she actually remembers is that, she had one beer.

How low can you go?

I reckon Trump was reeling from that NYT article that showed him for the complete fraud that he is, and lashed out to accuse someone else of it.

Call Me Jimmy

Calina wrote: »

How many times have you been sexually assaulted? You don't know this because almost 80% of people who were sexually assaultwd do not come forward. Why would they? Their lives get destroyed all over again. Very often there is no corroborrating evidence because their can't be. You want eye witnesses. How likely do you think that is? How many other victims does a rapist have to have before we start thinking you know, maybe the guy might be lying when he says he did nothing wrong? One man gets believed. But it took over 100 for people to start believing women and girls who complained about Larry Nassar.

And all that before you review Kavanaugh's behaviour in his hearing last week. Sexual assault claim aside, his behaviour is not acceptable for a judge. Not the drinking but the fact that the truthfulness of his responses is being seriously called into question.

They have already come forward so it's not a question of lives being destroyed. Only one of those who came forward are sure Kavanaugh assaulted them was the point you are responding to. That has nothing to do with the difficulty of getting eye witnesses or speaking out.

I don't believe him or her. If someone could corroborate something about a mass gang-raping, punch-spiking group of predators I will be all on board. That's the reason I've focused on the Swetnick allegations because they are the most likely to bring some breakthrough given the scope of the crimes. I've said if even one person corroborates the punch spiking allegation it would probably be enough to sway me.

Captain Obvious

spacecoyote wrote: »

https://twitter.com/laurayokwe/status/1047536789194330112

Lindsey Graham doubles down on Trumps Ford atracks. pretty repulsive stuff

He said it alright. The video is here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDJRTo8m9to

Apparently it's a quote from a political analyst who said it about an accusation against Clinton. It's not clear from the video what he was referring to but I think he was actually referring to double standards in how the dems treat accusations as opposed to referring to Ford.

Captain Obvious

Interesting to note from that press conference that Trump has withdrawn from the dispute resolution process of the Vienna Convention because he did not like being told that sanctions on Iran shouldn't affect humanitarian aid.

prawnsambo

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I don't believe him or her. If someone could corroborate something about a mass gang-raping, punch-spiking group of predators I will be all on board. That's the reason I've focused on the Swetnick allegations because they are the most likely to bring some breakthrough given the scope of the crimes. I've said if even one person corroborates the punch spiking allegation it would probably be enough to sway me.

Forget about her. She's not being put forward for the Supreme Court. You don't believe him, which means that he lied under oath in your view. Should I leave the corollorary to that for you to work out?

spacecoyote

Captain Obvious wrote: »

He said it alright. The video is here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDJRTo8m9to

Apparently it's a quote from a political analyst who said it about an accusation against Clinton. It's not clear from the video what he was referring to but I think he was actually referring to double standards in how the dems treat accusations as opposed to referring to Ford.

So I'm a bit confused by it. Is he saying that the dems are hypocrites because they said things when Clinton was up being investigated, or is he implying Fordis lying & doing it for the money?