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

Water John · 04-10-2018 8:16pm

Absolutely amazing physic powers is the only alternative view of Dr. Ford able to name the people that matched his diary entry.

Captain Obvious · 04-10-2018 8:17pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Kavanaugh was caught by the bollix was he, how did that work out for you?

Never works out for the players when the game is rigged from the start.

2 Scoops wrote: »

I don't see anything on supposed Russian money being funneled to Lindsey Graham either, was it the Palmer report reporting or some other nutjob source masking as a news source?

Where would you see it? The White House has control over the investigators and anything that is found is hardly going to be reported on Fox or Breitbart. The only person actively investigating Russia is Mueller and he's so inundated with indictments he simply has too much to do. Meanwhile the GOP are actively taking money from Russia and cavorting with their spies.

2 Scoops wrote: »

This is an excellent piece of the WSJ editorial board, the assault on Kavanaugh has unified the Republican party.

The party has been unified for a while now. Under Trump. All their principles are out the window.

2 Scoops wrote: »

It's not about Trump, but about how radical the Democrat party has become and how they'll stop at nothing to get power.

Really? Anything for power? They have nothing on the Republicans. Mass voter suppression, gerrymandering, compromised voting machines, illegal money, using hacked information, spreading fake news, hampering investigations.

2 Scoops wrote: »

I see a case against a man which I deemed not credible since the start

Of course you did.

2 Scoops wrote: »

because there's zero evidence or corroboration to support the accusation,

Evidence comes after an investigation. There was plenty of corroboration though.

2 Scoops wrote: »

even so I've seen Democrats on TV for weeks calling the man ( A person who was a high ranking member on GW Bush's staff and taught at Harvard ) a sexual predator and gang rapist.

Funny that, I've seen the POTUS mock a sexual assault victim, a disabled person, a US prisoner of war. I've seen him accuse the previous president of being from Africa, and also Muslim i believe, with no evidence. I've seen him accuse the Clintons of all sort of ridiculous stuff with no evidence. He also called for the death penalty for five black people before they were acquitted. And that man you talk so highly of has been outed as a liar and a perjurer by a great many people who went to school with him. I guess standards are for the other side though aren't they?

2 Scoops wrote: »

The FBI cleared him for the 7th time, it's still not enough.

Completely false. They did not clear him.

2 Scoops wrote: »

Is it a warped view of the world, where someone must be guilty until proven innocent?

Ask Trump. That's how he usually thinks.

2 Scoops wrote: »

I think you'd find that's how things operated under Stalin.

No, Stalin just got rid of his enemies without the need to find them guilty of anything.

2 Scoops wrote: »

Kavanaugh has nothing to prove,

Yes he does, he has to prove he is worthy of being a Supreme Court judge.

2 Scoops wrote: »

his accuser and her team have provided nothing of substance, not even a zilch of evidence to support her claim.

Again, false. They provided evidence from her therapist. Kavanuagh also provided evidence in the form of his calendars and Judge in the form of his book.

2 Scoops wrote: »

In fact if anything, what they've provided have actually helped Kavanaugh.

Only because GOP have seen how screwed they are when Dems get into power and start investigating everything so they are really pushing for Kavanuagh to swing the SC.

2 Scoops wrote: »

It doesn't matter who you believe, all that matters is the evidence and there isn't any.

Except there is.

2 Scoops · 04-10-2018 8:17pm

Thargor wrote: »

They'll hand them over when she's being interviewed, do you think they're bluffing and they dont exist? Funny that the Washington Post reviewed them and confirmed they're real then isnt it

They gave ( Katz most likely ) the WaPo a "Summary" according to her testimony. I'd like to see them if it takes the FBI interviewing her to obtain them.

“Did you show a full or partial set of those marriage therapy records to The Washington Post?” Mitchell asked.

“Um, I don’t remember,” Blasey Ford responded. “I remember summarizing for her what they said, so I’m not quite sure if I actually gave her the record.”

Leroy42 · 04-10-2018 8:18pm

2scoops, I 've asked this before but never answered.

Why are you now so adament that without complete evidence nothing is judged yet HC was guilty and Lock Her Up is a rally call for Trump.

Shouldn't Trump now issue a full apology to HC. Maybe even go through his own 'evidence' at a rally in the same way he did Dr Ford.

aloyisious · 04-10-2018 8:21pm

I get the idea that the FBI investigated the judge 6 previous time as part of the required vetting procedure for promotion into his existing job and several other federal jobs or positions he took up in the past, way before and totally unrelated to the claim of sexual assault laid against the Judge by the Prof. To refer to those six as being related in any way to the present investigation is a total lie from the start.

The conflation of all previous six and the present lesser one just ended is hogwash and Don Trump & GOP fake news story. The title Don used to describe it is very clever and fake, a total con job as Don is fond of saying. It is completely separate from the others and not an extension of the 6th. The 6th was not in any way about sexual assault on a schoolgirl.

If you don't go to the pertinent people and ask them pertinent questions, then the investigation report is a slam-dunk, designed to go into file 13 in the bottom drawer of the last filing cabinet at the back of the warehouse. Anyone who claims the latest investigation into the judge's fitness to be promoted into a USSC job is thorough and up to the best standards of the FBI is just plain stupid.

2 Scoops · 04-10-2018 8:25pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

2scoops, I 've asked this before but never answered.

Why are you now so adament that without complete evidence nothing is judged yet HC was guilty and Lock Her Up is a rally call for Trump.

Shouldn't Trump now issue a full apology to HC. Maybe even go through his own 'evidence' at a rally in the same way he did Dr Ford.

Nope

https://apnews.com/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625

"More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation-idUSKBN12Z2SL

"The Clinton Foundation has confirmed it accepted a $1 million gift from Qatar while Hillary Clinton was U.S. secretary of state without informing the State Department, even though she had promised to let the agency review new or significantly increased support from foreign governments."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fobs-hillarys-state-dept-gave-special-attention-friends/story?id=42615379

"In a series of candid email exchanges with top Clinton Foundation officials during the hours after the massive 2010 Haiti earthquake, a senior aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly gave special attention to those identified by the abbreviations “FOB” (friends of Bill Clinton) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs)."

And on, and on, and on.

Water John · 04-10-2018 8:25pm

But that is what the WH did. It made this trawl a addendum to the 6th. Thus it is by definition, minor in nature.
I think they interviewed a total of 9. One hard copy of that report is in the reading room for 100 Senators to view.

2 Scoops · 04-10-2018 8:29pm

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Except there is.

Not according to Rachel Mitchell. In before you call her a hack.

Thargor · 04-10-2018 8:31pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

They gave ( Katz most likely ) the WaPo a "Summary" according to her testimony. I'd like to see them if it takes the FBI interviewing her to obtain them.

“Did you show a full or partial set of those marriage therapy records to The Washington Post?” Mitchell asked.

“Um, I don’t remember,” Blasey Ford responded. “I remember summarizing for her what they said, so I’m not quite sure if I actually gave her the record.”

Pity the FBI in their totally free and unhindered investigation werent allowed to interview her then wasnt it. Do you now accept that your claim of there being absolutely "zilch" evidence is a lie? How about Kavanaughs own calendar backing up Fords claims about who was in attendance? Are you even listening to yourself here?

Water John · 04-10-2018 8:32pm

The bizarre thing is, it seems to be corroborated by Kavanaugh's own diary, that the party took place. It is he is denying he was there or moreso that Dr. Ford wasn't there.

Billy Mays · 04-10-2018 8:34pm

A Donald Trump fan wanting evidence to back up an accusation

I've heard it all now

2 Scoops · 04-10-2018 8:35pm

Thargor wrote: »

Pity the FBI in their totally free and unhindered investigation werent allowed to interview her then wasnt it. Do you now accept that your claim of there being absolutely "zilch" evidence is a lie? How about Kavanaughs own calendar backing up Fords claims about who was in attendance? Are you even listening to yourself here?

Are you listening to yourself? In her own testimony she cast ambiguity that the actual records were given to the Washington Post, like you have claimed as fact. I'm not going to rely on the credibility of some left wing hack lawyer like Debra Katz.

2 Scoops · 04-10-2018 8:37pm

Billy Mays wrote: »

A Donald Trump fan wanting evidence to back up an accusation

I've heard it all now

Very easy when I'm outnumbered 20 to 1. I suggest you try doing the same sometime instead of talking in an echo chamber where your viewpoint is never challenged.

Thargor · 04-10-2018 8:47pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Are you listening to yourself? In her own testimony she cast ambiguity that the actual records were given to the Washington Post, like you have claimed as fact. I'm not going to rely on the credibility of some left wing hack lawyer like Debra Katz.

*Sigh*

And your claim of "zilch" evidence? How's that looking?

So you think she didnt mention it to a therapist in 2012 and they dont have the notes that they're offering to the FBI? The Washington Post claim to have reviewed them, they dont exist is what you're saying?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.1712921fc98e

BabyCheeses · 04-10-2018 8:55pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

I don't know, you tell me.

I see a case against a man which I deemed not credible since the start because there's zero evidence or corroboration to support the accusation, even so I've seen Democrats on TV for weeks calling the man ( A person who was a high ranking member on GW Bush's staff and taught at Harvard ) a sexual predator and gang rapist. The FBI cleared him for the 7th time, it's still not enough.

Is it a warped view of the world, where someone must be guilty until proven innocent? I think you'd find that's how things operated under Stalin. Kavanaugh has nothing to prove, his accuser and her team have provided nothing of substance, not even a zilch of evidence to support her claim. In fact if anything, what they've provided have actually helped Kavanaugh. It doesn't matter who you believe, all that matters is the evidence and there isn't any.

What court has it been proven in that this is some conspiracy against Kavanagh? You don't even apply the same standards to yourself.

It's not like you would care if he was a rapist, daddy made your decision already.

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

― Jean Paul-Sartre

2 Scoops · 04-10-2018 9:01pm

Thargor wrote: »

*Sigh*

And your claim of "zilch" evidence? How's that looking?

Mighty fine, given he's very likely to be confirmed in a couple of days and the majority in the US wanted to see him confirmed if the FBI cleared him according to a Harvard poll.

"a new poll finds a potential trouble spot for Democrats: 60 percent of those surveyed say they believe he should be confirmed if the FBI investigation is unable to corroborate sexual misconduct accusations against him while 75 percent found fault with Sen. Dianne Feinstein's handling of the allegation"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/harvard-survey-60-percent-of-voters-want-kavanaugh-confirmed-if-the-fbi-finds-no-corroborating-evidence

So you think she didnt mention it to a therapist in 2012 and they dont have the notes that they're offering to the FBI? The Washington Post claim to have reviewed them, they dont exist is what you're saying?

I don't know because I haven't seen them, I'd like to. Your issue is with the FBI not interviewing her, imo they should have been provided to the committee.

Itssoeasy · 04-10-2018 9:01pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Very easy when I'm outnumbered 20 to 1. I suggest you try doing the same sometime instead of talking in an echo chamber where your viewpoint is never challenged.

You aren't outnumbered 20 to 1 btw. Is it not right to call the president of the United States out when he(and up to now it has been a he) is talking utter nonscence and alleging things that are easily proven to be not true ?

Do you think that Dr Ford is completely utterly lying about the entire episode and that she was never assaulted ?

Why was judge Kavanagh so evasive about his drinking and how he was when drinking heavily ? Drinking isn't a crime but he seemed to get defensive when it was put to him that he may have blacked out ?

I personally think taking the alleged sexual assaults out of it, that his statement at the start of his hearing two weeks ago showed serious issues which involved him getting unnecessarily political. The Supreme Court of the United States isn't meant to be overtly political.

Captain Obvious · 04-10-2018 9:01pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Not according to Rachel Mitchell. In before you call her a hack.

Except she didn't interview the witnesses or anyone but Ford alone. And when she started to interview Kavanaugh she was stopped because her questions brought attention to corroborative evidence.

Billy Mays · 04-10-2018 9:03pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Very easy when I'm outnumbered 20 to 1. I suggest you try doing the same sometime instead of talking in an echo chamber where your viewpoint is never challenged.

Very easy to point out hypocrisy and double standards.

2 Scoops · 04-10-2018 9:05pm

BabyCheeses wrote: »

What court has it been proven in that this is some conspiracy against Kavanagh? You don't even apply the same standards to yourself.

He has nothing to prove. If it worked the way you wanted it to the legal system and society as a whole would fall apart.

Thargor · 04-10-2018 9:06pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Mighty fine, given he's very likely to be confirmed in a couple of days and the majority in the US wanted to see him confirmed if the FBI cleared him according to a Harvard poll.

"a new poll finds a potential trouble spot for Democrats: 60 percent of those surveyed say they believe he should be confirmed if the FBI investigation is unable to corroborate sexual misconduct accusations against him while 75 percent found fault with Sen. Dianne Feinstein's handling of the allegation"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/harvard-survey-60-percent-of-voters-want-kavanaugh-confirmed-if-the-fbi-finds-no-corroborating-evidence

I don't know because I haven't seen them, I'd like to. Your issue is with the FBI not interviewing her, imo they should have been provided to the committee.

And while you're squirming, could you maybe refer back to your recent claim of "zilch" evidence please? If you dont like the bit where she mentioned it to her therapist 6 years ago how about Kavanaughs calendar corroborating Fords claims about who was in attendance at the party etc? This is "zilch" evidence to you?

BabyCheeses · 04-10-2018 9:07pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

He has nothing to prove. If it worked the way you wanted it to the legal system and society as a whole would fall apart.

He said this was a conspiracy by the dems and Clinton against him. Where is the proof?

2 Scoops · 04-10-2018 9:08pm

Billy Mays wrote: »

Very easy to point out hypocrisy and double standards.

Durbin, Schumer and Feinstein who were still around ignored Juanita Broadwick back in 99 even though she had witnesses and credible evidence of a rape committed by Bill Clinton, how's that for a double standard?

BabyCheeses · 04-10-2018 9:12pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Durbin, Schumer and Feinstein who were still around ignored Juanita Broadwick back in 99 even though she had witnesses and credible evidence of a rape committed by Bill Clinton, how's that for a double standard?

Which trial was this from?

drkpower · 04-10-2018 9:13pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Anyone who claims the latest investigation into the judge's fitness to be promoted into a USSC job is thorough and up to the best standards of the FBI is just plain stupid.

Of course, the investigation isn't up to the best standards of what the FBI normally conduct. But the circumstances in which the FBI usually conduct such investigations is in the criminal context.

This is not a criminal context. And, at the end of the day, no criminal complaint has EVER been made. This is a political arena, like it or not. dr ford chose to enter this arena. She could have made a criminal complaint; she didn't. That option is still open to her, and if that claim is proven, the case for impeachment is undeniable.

What the FBI have done, certainly in respect of the ford allegations, is speak to those who could have corrroborative evidence, and it appears no such corroboration exists.

In a practical context, any FBI Investigation that would match what they would do in the criminal context would take months; that simply is not either practically or politically possible. The political reality is that if an allegation first raised on the eve of a sensitive political appointment can be allowed to delay such an appointment for months by a so far uncorrobrated allegation, the system would completely break down. And that applies whatever side of the aisle you are on. Be careful what you wish for.

RobertKK · 04-10-2018 9:33pm

I remember people here who were confident last week that the FBI would turn up stuff, now they are dismissing the FBI since it didn't come back with what they expected and some are prepared to believe every word a Democrat says.
Yet nothing to stop Brett Kavanaugh becoming a Supreme Court judge.

2 Scoops · 04-10-2018 9:34pm

Thargor wrote: »

And while you're squirming, could you maybe refer back to your recent claim of "zilch" evidence please? If you dont like the bit where she mentioned it to her therapist 6 years ago how about Kavanaughs calendar corroborating Fords claims about who was in attendance at the party etc? This is "zilch" evidence to you?

Buddy, it would take a lot more for me to "squirm" as you put it. Yes, I don't believe anything that's been provided or suggested meet the threshold of credible evidence in a legal sense. There's no witness corroboration. If you wanted to go the other route you could dig 100 holes in her story. I don't know who's telling the truth, what I do know is that without credible evidence or corroboration peoples lives should not be destroyed. I know there's people out there even if they knew Kavanaugh was innocent, they'd still have no problem with him being destroyed if it kept him off the supreme court. That to me is a sickness, but each to their own.

aloyisious · 04-10-2018 9:36pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Very easy when I'm outnumbered 20 to 1. I suggest you try doing the same sometime instead of talking in an echo chamber where your viewpoint is never challenged.

The thing is you are actually challenging the viewpoints of others so it's not a echo chamber here, it's just their viewpoints don't match yours. By posting on here you are doing us a favour by challenging O/P's viewpoints. Keep up the good work.

Itssoeasy · 04-10-2018 9:36pm

https://twitter.com/luluramadan/status/1047916196568453123?s=21

Right for the people who think it's a democratic plot and the Dr Ford issue doesn't hurt him. Above Is a lifelong republican former Supreme Court justice who said he feels judge Kavanagh is wrong for the court.

So which conspiracy fits the former Supreme Court justice ?

drkpower · 04-10-2018 9:38pm

Thargor wrote: »

And while you're squirming, could you maybe refer back to your recent claim of "zilch" evidence please? If you dont like the bit where she mentioned it to her therapist 6 years ago how about Kavanaughs calendar corroborating Fords claims about who was in attendance at the party etc? This is "zilch" evidence to you?

What she said to her therapist isn't corroborative evidence. It certainly supports her own credibility, but it is not corrobotion, or certainly not independent corroboration which is what matters in these circumstances.

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

Comments