Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…169170172174175…323

Comments

  • Options
    #5132
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,556 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    I'll make sure to individually quote the denials of the alleged incident in the future, sheesh. I don't see why semantics matter in this case, the bottom line is no witness cited backed up Ford's allegation.

    Don't bother, the statements, letters and the wordings used on record are there for all to see. If you think they are just semantics, I don't think the prof, the judge, Mr Judge and Ms Keyser would agree with your evaluation.


  • Options
    #5133
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    I'll make sure to individually quote the denials of the alleged incident in the future, sheesh. I don't see why semantics matter in this case, the bottom line is no witness cited backed up Ford's allegation.


    I didn't see Kavanaugh at the party either though. Or at least, I don't remember seeing him there.


  • Options
    #5134
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    I didn't see Kavanaugh at the party either though. Or at least, I don't remember seeing him there.

    This angle just goes way over my head. I'll try play along, who cited you as a witness?


  • Options
    #5135
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Don't bother, the statements, letters and the wordings used on record are there for all to see. If you think they are just semantics, I don't think the prof, the judge, Mr Judge and Ms Keyser would agree with your evaluation.

    An easier way to ask it, which of the four collaborated her story?

    Nobody did. Nobody who drove her to the party, or drove her home. She doesn't know the location, she doesn't know the date.

    She remembers she had one beer though.


  • Options
    #5136
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    I don't care what the media says.

    Proof is on the accuser, simple as. If life has thought me anything it's that people are disingenuous when stakes or money are high. Not saying that applies to Ms Ford - just in general. Until there's proof I'll question everything.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5137
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    This angle just goes way over my head. I'll try play along, who cited you as a witness?


    I don't recall.


  • Options
    #5138
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    I don't recall.

    I don't get that either, I can spring it the other way saying there's no intent or whatever when there was mountains of evidence. I'm not your enemy man, I just disagree with you on certain points.


  • Options
    #5139
    mattser
    Registered Users Posts: 2,211 ✭✭✭mattser


    Thank you big black horse for unbanning me, and welcoming me back to the thread.
    Kavanaugh case is very interesting.


  • Options
    #5140
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,102 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Submitting a statement is not the same as being questioned by the FBI. If it was, Judge and Kavanaugh would not have had a problem with it.

    Right there is your proof of there being a difference.

    Probative questions can be asked, details picked up on, those details can be checked out. Specifics matter. The FBI are experts in dealing with cold cases. I would be calling for an investigation if I believed I was the victim of a case of mistaken identity.

    There is of course one possibility that i haven't seen mentioned here and that's Kavanaugh wanted the FBI to get involved but the Reps told him they would get him through without one and if one was launched, his nomination would be delayed.


  • Options
    #5141
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,556 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    everlast75 wrote: »
    Submitting a statement is not the same as being questioned by the FBI. If it was, Judge and Kavanaugh would not have had a problem with it.

    Right there is your proof of there being a difference.

    Probative questions can be asked, details picked up on, those details can be checked out. Specifics matter. The FBI are experts in dealing with cold cases. I would be calling for an investigation if I believed I was the victim of a case of mistaken identity.

    There is of course one possibility that i haven't seen mentioned here and that's Kavanaugh wanted the FBI to get involved but the Reps told him they would get him through without one and if one was launched, his nomination would be delayed.

    I'm amused at the way the GOP are going for broke, pushing forward with him to the floor of the senate while the FBI are getting ready to investigate him. That's hedging their bet; if things turn up bad for him "well, we did do as we were asked" and if not "well, we told you he is an OK guy and it was all a con". I can imagine the "oh ****" looks on JS's and RR's faces at Justice when they heard the news: you can deliver the report, cos I'm not! Imagine Mr Judge's face and mind if he was looking at Jeff Flake in the committee room yesterday.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5142
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    If it comes up bad, I imagine Donald will smear the investigation...


  • Options
    #5143
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,435 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    batgoat wrote: »
    If it comes up bad, I imagine Donald will smear the investigation...

    He will revert to form and say the FBI are corrupt.


  • Options
    #5144
    derb12
    Registered Users Posts: 493 ✭✭derb12


    Two different people with just a passing interest in this stuff said to me yesterday something along the lines of “isn’t this Kavanaugh thing ridiculous, why are they wasting time on this accusation when even her four supposed witnesses deny that it ever happened”. It’s so easy to dismiss it all with simplistic narrative that the slightly more nuanced truth of “they don’t recall the incident” and by her account, they’d have no reason to recall it. The only people who say it didn’t happen are the 2 accused perpetrators, Kavanaugh under oath and judge in a statement made by his lawyers. Kavanaugh himself stated this falsehood in his testimony,
    The key point which I’d like to see made is this: how can you ha s a justice of the Supreme Court who mixes up “I don’t remember the incident” with “the incident didn’t happen”.


  • Options
    #5145
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    I think that is a symptom of people passively optimising their news consumption to bite sized chunks. I had a conversation during the week where I discovered even the minimal amount if news I consume by reading more than a headline and para 1 resulted in a response of How do You Know all this? And I am not anywhere near as informed as I used to be as I just don't have time. So at the back of my head I have wondered how you address this - basically media literacy. Not just to avoid fake news but to be able to analyse and see grey areas. Given how state education (uk) and public schooling (us) have been messed around over years, which disproportionately affects the less well off, I sometimes wonder if the creation of a less tooled up class with poorer analytical tools was deliberate.

    That being said, Kavanaugh's behaviour at his hearing the other day would have had him ruled out immediately if he were female. Not professional. Included inaccuracies to a Senate committee. Hysterical, harpy. People are constantly telling rape victims how how they should or should have responded. I reckon he should have stayed calm, answered the questions clearly, concisely and without obfuscation. Very easy to do that when the truth is on your side, in my experience.


  • Options
    #5146
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,166 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    What prompted Trump to order an investigation? Did senators from the committee threaten to not vote Kanaugh through?


  • Options
    #5147
    Rhineshark
    Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭Rhineshark


    MadYaker wrote: »
    What prompted Trump to order an investigation? Did senators from the committee threaten to not vote Kanaugh through?

    Basically, yes. Jeff Flake made his vote contingent in putting off the floor vote for a week for an FBI investigation and other swing votes - Murkowski, Collins, Manchin (potential Dem swing) backed him.

    Trump reckons the investigation must be short and limited in scope but these things are not easily rebottled once opened so we'll see.

    Investigation according to Senate is one week, limited to current credible claims.


  • Options
    #5148
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,166 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    I think it’ll be inconclusive, Flake and co will consider their asses covered and will vote him in anyway. How much can the FBI really find out about an alleged sexual assault 30 odd years ago where all parties involved seem a bit flakey on details?

    Did she name Kavanaugh in 2012 when she told a thereapist?


  • Options
    #5149
    humberklog
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,435 Mod ✭✭✭✭humberklog


    MadYaker wrote: »

    Did she name Kavanaugh in 2012 when she told a thereapist?

    No.


  • Options
    #5150
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,160 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    She named him before he became the nominee.


  • Options
    #5151
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,086 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Water John wrote: »
    She named him before he became the nominee.
    She named him to her husband around the same time as the therapy I thought, or at least said a potential supreme Court justice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5152
    SimonTemplar
    Registered Users Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭SimonTemplar


    derb12 wrote: »
    Two different people with just a passing interest in this stuff said to me yesterday something along the lines of “isn’t this Kavanaugh thing ridiculous, why are they wasting time on this accusation when even her four supposed witnesses deny that it ever happened”. It’s so easy to dismiss it all with simplistic narrative that the slightly more nuanced truth of “they don’t recall the incident” and by her account, they’d have no reason to recall it. The only people who say it didn’t happen are the 2 accused perpetrators, Kavanaugh under oath and judge in a statement made by his lawyers. Kavanaugh himself stated this falsehood in his testimony,
    The key point which I’d like to see made is this: how can you ha s a justice of the Supreme Court who mixes up “I don’t remember the incident” with “the incident didn’t happen”.


    One of the Democrat senators mentioned yesterday that Kavanagh's calendar entry for 1st July bears a lot of similarity with Dr. Ford's story.

    After his speech, Grassley rebutted that the calendar entry had more than four people attending the party but Dr. Ford said there were only four people at the party she attended, so that was a different gathering.

    This is a complete false recollection of her testimony. When asked about the number of people there by the prosecutor she said she remembers four but admitted there might have been others. The prosecutor then asked if it would be fair to say there were "at least four" people there and Dr. Ford agreed.

    So anyone taking Grassley word as truth would immediately discount that 1st July entry as not being significant. I think it is very inappropriate for the committee chair to misrepresent witness testimony like that. It was probably an honest mistake on his part, but in his important position, he needs to get the facts right.


  • Options
    #5153
    Panrich
    Registered Users Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Panrich


    MadYaker wrote: »
    I think it’ll be inconclusive, Flake and co will consider their asses covered and will vote him in anyway. How much can the FBI really find out about an alleged sexual assault 30 odd years ago where all parties involved seem a bit flakey on details?

    Did she name Kavanaugh in 2012 when she told a thereapist?

    If they find evidence that Kavanaugh misled the senate or lied in his testimony, that would also be enough to scupper him. Even a few inconsistencies might do it. They don't just have to find evidence of the assault


  • Options
    #5154
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,160 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Panrich, I might qualify that by saying, it should be enough to scupper him.


  • Options
    #5155
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,057 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    I remember back during Watergate where Nixon offered to have Senator John Stennis listen to his tapes in order to prove Nixon hadn't done anything wrong.

    One problem: Stennis was deaf.

    I'm thinking this FBI investigation will be done by "the best people, top men" kind of like the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Or, maybe handpicked by Trump, though who knows, if in my fantasy he picks the worst FBI agents, maybe they'll turn out to be good as Trump's so awful at picking good people (cf: his cabinet, WH staff, Omarosa, ...)


  • Options
    #5156
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,160 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    The FBI is an independent agency. Staffing would be decided by Director Chris Wray.


  • Options
    #5157
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    robinph wrote: »
    She named him to her husband around the same time as the therapy I thought, or at least said a potential supreme Court justice.

    She named him in the therapy session to her husband, but the therapist didn't take note of the name.


  • Options
    #5158
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,057 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Water John wrote: »
    The FBI is an independent agency. Staffing would be decided by Director Chris Wray.

    Oh, I know. Just humor me. Deep state, nudge nudge wink wink, just channeling my inner tGOP conspiracy-under-every-rock-can't-believe-them false persona. I mean, isn't the FBI out to get Trump so wouldn't anything they find on Kavanaugh be subject to a tweetstorm from the POTUS and his cult45 lapdogs?

    Bigger concern is, what happens when it takes longer than a week? A week is no time. There are 3 known complainants and a bunch of witnesses to interview. Plus, Kavanaugh will need to be interviewed several times. Week is too short. Month seems reasonable, want to give Kavanaugh some time to rebut and all that.


  • Options
    #5159
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,556 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Panrich wrote: »
    If they find evidence that Kavanaugh misled the senate or lied in his testimony, that would also be enough to scupper him. Even a few inconsistencies might do it. They don't just have to find evidence of the assault

    Re this investigation, should the FBI find something showing he lied to them in the past, that might/should affect his chances, given how other Don selectees are in deep **** for lying to the FBI. I looked at the wording used by Don [limited supplemental] when he gave the OK for this investigation and am left thinking it is merely a re-opening or extension of a previous investigation [and not a 7th] which mean's it has the chance that it will include going over ground and statements from at least one prior investigation.

    White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted that Trump had ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update the judge's file. Trump's statement said, "As the Senate has requested, this UPDATE must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week.

    Assumptions coming up: I'm assuming that - humans being human - Judge Kavanaugh [or his lawyer] may be tempted to get in touch with Mr Judge [or his lawyer] over the weekend to get their stories into line. The same might apply with Ms Keyser or her lawyer. I'm also assuming that the FBI should actually contact the known two other people allegedly in the party house at the time of the claimed assault by the judge on the Prof, unless the limited supplemental investigation has inhibiting instructions included for the agents. I'm assuming there is a chance that the FBI Director will have input in it and wonder if he will be spoken to by the AG or DAG to ensure he knows it must be a "thorough" investigation, given it's limitations. I'm assuming that the FBI director wont allow his agents to knowingly with-hold information or lie to the senate on what they find in this investigation, whatever his boss might desire.

    If there was a refusal or claim of incomplete memory from the recovering illness witness [Mr Judge] on medical grounds to assist the investigation, it might stymie the investigation at the 1st hurdle.


  • Options
    #5160
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,256 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    The stupid thing is that we are now exactly where we should have been a month ago with the FBI investigation, but now we have had a circus as well.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5161
    Rjd2
    Registered Users Posts: 12,020 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    The stupid thing is that we are now exactly where we should have been a month ago with the FBI investigation, but now we have had a circus as well.

    Do you think he will be confirmed? If not do you have any preference who would replace him?

    Obviously I know it will be very hard to get anyone else through before the midterms.:o


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement