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)
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 15023
He'll be voted on, but two Republican senators switching to a no and he's toast. Everyone's looking at the usual suspects, Lisa Murkowski (AK), Susan Collins (ME), Jeff Flake (AZ) and Bob Corker (TN).
I'm not sure that the vote will go ahead of Grassley isn't 100% on the numbers.
I think that they all get in a room tonight and if they don't have a bullet-proof 50 votes nailed down, they cancel tomorrow and say that they are going to take the time to investigate the other allegations.
No way they go to a vote and lose on the Senate floor .0 -
Been postponed. Trump is doubtless glued to the telly and spitting blood.
From all accounts the rage is aimed at his own side rather than Ford. A pretty good description of his mood from a solid source below
https://twitter.com/gabrielsherman0 -
I'm not sure that the vote will go ahead of Grassley isn't 100% on the numbers.
I think that they all get in a room tonight and if they don't have a bullet-proof 50 votes nailed down, they cancel tomorrow and say that they are going to take the time to investigate the other allegations.
No way they go to a vote and lose on the Senate floor .
Fox were saying they were worried before this week, that is why Kavanaugh did the Fox interview and Mitch tried to rally the troops numerous times this week.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »This is the equivalent of a job interview.
Would you hire someone that multiple women tell you is an abuser? A black-out drunk? Has lied under oath multiple times about both?
For a job which is one of just 9 lifetime positions?
The problem is it isn't just a job interview. It has also turned into a pseudo-trial (without the presumption of innocence or proper rules of procedure) and, most importantly, it's political theater; For both sides, and anyone who thinks this isn't all going down with every senator up there keeping a strong eye on the elections in five weeks has their head in the sand. From the Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/acb7479a-ba65-11e8-94b2-17176fbf93f5
America’s culture wars have just taken a nosedive. Whether Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford in the early 1980s is probably unknowable. Some automatically believe Ms Ford’s allegations that she was held down on a bed by a drunken Mr Kavanaugh, now 53, and his friend. Others unquestioningly accept Mr Kavanaugh’s categorical denial that any such incident took place. The first tend to be Democrats, the second Republicans.
But justice is the last thing on Washington’s mind. Regardless of what happened, Mr Kavanaugh and Ms Ford now personify opposite sides of a #MeToo fight that is likely to poison Washington
I'm not comfortable with the way this has been handled by anyone involved. Which makes me even more inclined to think this is about politics, not morals. Unlike Gorsuch, or DeVos, or any other examples given, Kavanaugh is likely to change the court make-up for the next few decades from 'swingable' to 'fairly conservative', the stakes are huge, and, in theory, the Democrats have nothing to lose: The only way they have a chance of preventing it is to hold off the appointment until after the elections, which they might actually win the Senate. Probably won't, last I saw, but better than the 0 chance they have otherwise.
On the one hand, given the precedent in the Thomas nomination, I agree that it seems to have been an error by the GOP to not let the FBI do a quick root-around, and the way this 'interview' is going isn't doing them any credit either.
On the other hand, if Ford went to a prosecutor today with her story, and handed her video evidence from a camcorder which happened to be on, the prosecutor would say "I'm very sorry, I believe you, you have good evidence, there is nothing to be done." The statute of limitations exists for a number of good reasons. Yet it doesn't apply here. Kavanaugh is not incorrect in his position: If all it takes is a verbal accusation from someone who seems credible three decades after the fact to derail a life and career, then we have just set an incredibly high threshold to pass and a pretty good deterrence to future appointees: Anyone (at least, anyone male right now) who is going to let their name go forward for anything is going to do so with the possibility of assassination attempts of their character as a proven viable technique. Even if it is justified here by the events Ford references having happened, that is not to say that a whisper here, a leaked paper there, and other politicians or nominees will have to jump an unproven hurdle which can devastate their career, because it worked.
DiFi sitting on the letter for six weeks has not helped matters. She says she did it to protect confidentiality. With respect, no. If the character of a SCOTUS justice matters that much to her, she would have said something. She doesn't have to reveal the person's name, just say "I have received information of an alleged assault. I am not going to reveal who, and I would like an investigation. I'll give the name to the FBI investigator". She said nothing, until after Kavanaugh held his own in the nomination hearings. The timing stinks. Even if she is absolutely honest in her motivations, it looks pretty poor and is a severe miscalculation. She's getting criticism from both sides, her Party-endorsed opponent for next month is on her too. https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Trump-and-Kevin-de-Le-n-agree-Feinstein-blew-it-13239745.php
This miscalculation may have led to another. Republicans are fuming mad. Normally voters for the incumbent party tend to have lesser turn-out rates in mid-term elections, because they are less motivated, less angry, and, frankly, sitting on their laurels. I've seen this on some of the conservative boards I hang out on, merely assuming because things are going their way, with both sides of Congress and the White House, that things will continue to go their way.
Now there are articles crossing my feed with titles like "Feinstein has managed to do what Trump couldn't: Motivate Republican voters."
Whatever the merits to the allegations, because this position is so politicised, because of the way things have shaped up, Republican voters are either viewing this as a last-ditch, falsely based character assassination attempt, or a last-ditch assassination attempt which is based on a true story, and that the 'truth' of it is merely a convenient bonus to the assassins. The politics has become more important than Kavanaugh.
Bascially, if we thought that Trump was the low-point of US politics, we have obviously dramatically underestimated the capability of our politicians.0 -
Kauvanagh is happily married for years and his wife is happy to stand by him.
dont you think she knows her husband better than someone who remembers something in therapy thirty years after it happened.
Is there any evidence of her sobriety on the night, therapists like to have someone to blame and everyone, *sighs* hates Trump so lets see can we put woman and Kauvanagh in the same sentence.
Bill Cosby's wife stuck by him, he went to jail the other day...0 -
Advertisement
-
This is far above Trump's level. Though Hatch is trying to bring it down. His opinion on Ford is that she is "attractive" and a nice person. Ffs. Annoys me as it just makes men look bad.Manic Moran wrote: »Zubeneschamali wrote: »This is the equivalent of a job interview.
Would you hire someone that multiple women tell you is an abuser? A black-out drunk? Has lied under oath multiple times about both?
For a job which is one of just 9 lifetime positions?
The problem is it isn't just a job interview. It has also turned into a pseudo-trial (without the presumption of innocence or proper rules of procedure) and, most importantly, it's political theater; For both sides, and anyone who thinks this isn't all going down with every senator up there keeping a strong eye on the elections in five weeks has their head in the sand. From the Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/acb7479a-ba65-11e8-94b2-17176fbf93f5
America’s culture wars have just taken a nosedive. Whether Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford in the early 1980s is probably unknowable. Some automatically believe Ms Ford’s allegations that she was held down on a bed by a drunken Mr Kavanaugh, now 53, and his friend. Others unquestioningly accept Mr Kavanaugh’s categorical denial that any such incident took place. The first tend to be Democrats, the second Republicans.
But justice is the last thing on Washington’s mind. Regardless of what happened, Mr Kavanaugh and Ms Ford now personify opposite sides of a #MeToo fight that is likely to poison Washington
I'm not comfortable with the way this has been handled by anyone involved. Which makes me even more inclined to think this is about politics, not morals. Unlike Gorsuch, or DeVos, or any other examples given, Kavanaugh is likely to change the court make-up for the next few decades from 'swingable' to 'fairly conservative', the stakes are huge, and, in theory, the Democrats have nothing to lose: The only way they have a chance of preventing it is to hold off the appointment until after the elections, which they might actually win the Senate. Probably won't, last I saw, but better than the 0 chance they have otherwise.
On the one hand, given the precedent in the Thomas nomination, I agree that it seems to have been an error by the GOP to not let the FBI do a quick root-around, and the way this 'interview' is going isn't doing them any credit either.
On the other hand, if Ford went to a prosecutor today with her story, and handed her video evidence from a camcorder which happened to be on, the prosecutor would say "I'm very sorry, I believe you, you have good evidence, there is nothing to be done." The statute of limitations exists for a number of good reasons. Yet it doesn't apply here. Kavanaugh is not incorrect in his position: If all it takes is a verbal accusation from someone who seems credible three decades after the fact to derail a life and career, then we have just set an incredibly high threshold to pass and a pretty good deterrence to future appointees: Anyone (at least, anyone male right now) who is going to let their name go forward for anything is going to do so with the possibility of assassination attempts of their character as a proven viable technique. Even if it is justified here by the events Ford references having happened, that is not to say that a whisper here, a leaked paper there, and other politicians or nominees will have to jump an unproven hurdle which can devastate their career, because it worked.
DiFi sitting on the letter for six weeks has not helped matters. She says she did it to protect confidentiality. With respect, no. If the character of a SCOTUS justice matters that much to her, she would have said something. She doesn't have to reveal the person's name, just say "I have received information of an alleged assault. I am not going to reveal who, and I would like an investigation. I'll give the name to the FBI investigator". She said nothing, until after Kavanaugh held his own in the nomination hearings. The timing stinks. Even if she is absolutely honest in her motivations, it looks pretty poor and is a severe miscalculation. She's getting criticism from both sides, her Party-endorsed opponent for next month is on her too. https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Trump-and-Kevin-de-Le-n-agree-Feinstein-blew-it-13239745.php
This miscalculation may have led to another. Republicans are fuming mad. Normally voters for the incumbent party tend to have lesser turn-out rates in mid-term elections, because they are less motivated, less angry, and, frankly, sitting on their laurels. I've seen this on some of the conservative boards I hang out on, merely assuming because things are going their way, with both sides of Congress and the White House, that things will continue to go their way.
Now there are articles crossing my feed with titles like "Feinstein has managed to do what Trump couldn't: Motivate Republican voters."
Whatever the merits to the allegations, because this position is so politicised, because of the way things have shaped up, Republican voters are either viewing this as a last-ditch, falsely based character assassination attempt, or a last-ditch assassination attempt which is based on a true story, and that the 'truth' of it is merely a convenient bonus to the assassins. The politics has become more important than Kavanaugh.
Bascially, if we thought that Trump was the low-point of US politics, we have obviously dramatically underestimated the capability of our politicians.
Conservatives have been giving out about "insert dem leader name" and saying they are destroying the dems fpr a while.
As for simple words destroying a career. It this is destroying a career it didn't even take an accusation to destroy the last Democrat nomination's career so you can take a jump if that is your argument.
Anyway no one wanted to destroy this man's career on this testimony. Remember that Ford wanted the investigation. The only reason it is her word vs his is because of Kavanagh. So it really is a ridiculous argument to refuse to be investigated and then be annoyed the opposition does not have proof.
No one is going to prison. While you could call it a trial it is more getting information for an interview. If you are 80% someone is a thief you don't hire them as a security guard. Even if 20% is plenty reasonable doubt.0 -
I'm not sure that the vote will go ahead of Grassley isn't 100% on the numbers.
I think that they all get in a room tonight and if they don't have a bullet-proof 50 votes nailed down, they cancel tomorrow and say that they are going to take the time to investigate the other allegations.
No way they go to a vote and lose on the Senate floor .
Maybe, but they have to push through some variety of nominee before the mid-terms, when they've guaranteed to lose the House of Reps and will be blocked from appointing anyone onto the Supreme Court after that.0 -
So in usual Manic Moran style, Yes the GOP are wrong.... but those Democrats.... they are the real evil. Them playing politics is definitely worse than us Conservatives standing by an alleged sexual predator.0
-
The only fly in the Kavanaugh defence is that the other person alleged to be in the room, his friend judge, has refused to appear before the committee and testify in all honesty as to what Judge Kavanaugh did. or did not, do in the room at the party. Kavanaugh's friend won't even appear before the committee and say "I was NOT in the room when the alleged attempted rape is supposed to have happened" let alone say "I was there and no attempted rape took place while I was there". How telling is that display of friendship to people around the US when it comes to making up one's mind on the issue of what happened, or did not happen, in that room.0
-
Manic Moran wrote: »The problem is it isn't just a job interview. It has also turned into a pseudo-trial (without the presumption of innocence or proper rules of procedure) and, most importantly, it's political theater; For both sides, and anyone who thinks this isn't all going down with every senator up there keeping a strong eye on the elections in five weeks has their head in the sand. From the Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/acb7479a-ba65-11e8-94b2-17176fbf93f5
America’s culture wars have just taken a nosedive. Whether Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford in the early 1980s is probably unknowable. Some automatically believe Ms Ford’s allegations that she was held down on a bed by a drunken Mr Kavanaugh, now 53, and his friend. Others unquestioningly accept Mr Kavanaugh’s categorical denial that any such incident took place. The first tend to be Democrats, the second Republicans.
But justice is the last thing on Washington’s mind. Regardless of what happened, Mr Kavanaugh and Ms Ford now personify opposite sides of a #MeToo fight that is likely to poison Washington
I'm not comfortable with the way this has been handled by anyone involved. Which makes me even more inclined to think this is about politics, not morals. Unlike Gorsuch, or DeVos, or any other examples given, Kavanaugh is likely to change the court make-up for the next few decades from 'swingable' to 'fairly conservative', the stakes are huge, and, in theory, the Democrats have nothing to lose: The only way they have a chance of preventing it is to hold off the appointment until after the elections, which they might actually win the Senate. Probably won't, last I saw, but better than the 0 chance they have otherwise.
On the one hand, given the precedent in the Thomas nomination, I agree that it seems to have been an error by the GOP to not let the FBI do a quick root-around, and the way this 'interview' is going isn't doing them any credit either.
On the other hand, if Ford went to a prosecutor today with her story, and handed her video evidence from a camcorder which happened to be on, the prosecutor would say "I'm very sorry, I believe you, you have good evidence, there is nothing to be done." The statute of limitations exists for a number of good reasons. Yet it doesn't apply here. Kavanaugh is not incorrect in his position: If all it takes is a verbal accusation from someone who seems credible three decades after the fact to derail a life and career, then we have just set an incredibly high threshold to pass and a pretty good deterrence to future appointees: Anyone (at least, anyone male right now) who is going to let their name go forward for anything is going to do so with the possibility of assassination attempts of their character as a proven viable technique. Even if it is justified here by the events Ford references having happened, that is not to say that a whisper here, a leaked paper there, and other politicians or nominees will have to jump an unproven hurdle which can devastate their career, because it worked.
DiFi sitting on the letter for six weeks has not helped matters. She says she did it to protect confidentiality. With respect, no. If the character of a SCOTUS justice matters that much to her, she would have said something. She doesn't have to reveal the person's name, just say "I have received information of an alleged assault. I am not going to reveal who, and I would like an investigation. I'll give the name to the FBI investigator". She said nothing, until after Kavanaugh held his own in the nomination hearings. The timing stinks. Even if she is absolutely honest in her motivations, it looks pretty poor and is a severe miscalculation. She's getting criticism from both sides, her Party-endorsed opponent for next month is on her too. https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Trump-and-Kevin-de-Le-n-agree-Feinstein-blew-it-13239745.php
This miscalculation may have led to another. Republicans are fuming mad. Normally voters for the incumbent party tend to have lesser turn-out rates in mid-term elections, because they are less motivated, less angry, and, frankly, sitting on their laurels. I've seen this on some of the conservative boards I hang out on, merely assuming because things are going their way, with both sides of Congress and the White House, that things will continue to go their way.
Now there are articles crossing my feed with titles like "Feinstein has managed to do what Trump couldn't: Motivate Republican voters."
Whatever the merits to the allegations, because this position is so politicised, because of the way things have shaped up, Republican voters are either viewing this as a last-ditch, falsely based character assassination attempt, or a last-ditch assassination attempt which is based on a true story, and that the 'truth' of it is merely a convenient bonus to the assassins. The politics has become more important than Kavanaugh.
Bascially, if we thought that Trump was the low-point of US politics, we have obviously dramatically underestimated the capability of our politicians.
To the people that mattered, the majority Republicans, Kavanaugh did have the presumption of innocence. There was very little suggestion Ford's testimony would even make a difference with a number of them stating he'd be the next SC judge.
The fact of the matter is the GOP started the dirty tricks by stealing an appointment from Obama and taking pride in it. And instead of putting two safe nominations forward they put forward a disaster to try topple the court. They also tried railroading this through before the allegations were made. They've completely brought this on themselves.0 -
Advertisement
-
Manic Moran wrote: »The problem is it isn't just a job interview. It has also turned into a pseudo-trial (without the presumption of innocence or proper rules of procedure) and, most importantly, it's political theater; For both sides, and anyone who thinks this isn't all going down with every senator up there keeping a strong eye on the elections in five weeks has their head in the sand.
Now there are articles crossing my feed with titles like "Feinstein has managed to do what Trump couldn't: Motivate Republican voters."
The politics has become more important than Kavanaugh.
Bascially, if we thought that Trump was the low-point of US politics, we have obviously dramatically underestimated the capability of our politicians.
Flashback to the comedy take of Don and Hillary around the time of the election: he goes lower, I go higher.0 -
Rick Santorum who would be considered one of the safest votes for Kavanaugh has said he finds Ford creditable. This is done.0
-
I still think Kavanaugh will still be nominated; Anita Hill didn't stop Clarence Thomas from gaining his seat, and the Republicans this time around are desperate, positively ravenous for this conservative pick to go through.
Anita hill took a lot of votes off Clarence Thomas. Kavanagh only needs to lose two of the GOP to not be confirmed. The margins for Kavanagh are razor thin.0 -
Rick Santorum who would be considered one of the safest votes for Kavanaugh has said he finds Ford creditable. This is done.
I dunno. Its easy for someone like Santorum to say he finds her credible before Kavanaugh testifies. Then once Kavanaugh is finished testifying, say that he believes Kavanaughs account. Gives the illusion of treating Ford's testimony seriously before dismissing it later as "It must have been someone else and she just thought it was him"
Maybe I'm wrong and I hope I am. But given what's already happened in this whole thing so far, it's not over til it's over.0 -
So in usual Manic Moran style, Yes the GOP are wrong.... but those Democrats.... they are the real evil. Them playing politics is definitely worse than us Conservatives standing by an alleged sexual predator.
Oh, bull.
If you haven't figured out by now, I'm something of a stickler for processes, and something of a cynic on politicians, especially in a hyper-partisan environment.
And you've hit the nail on the head: "alleged sexual predator". It doesn't take much to make an allegation. It doesn't take a single mine to make a minefield, just put up a sign. Do you not see an inherent problem with "someone said something from three decades ago, with no evidence" affecting the course of the country? Today it's an allegation of sexual predation. Tomorrow it's espionage. Then it's child abuse. Standards exist in the legal system for a reason. This is extra-judicial, with no rules, except those which the politicians decide to play by. I don't like playing by the rules of any politician for just these sorts of reasons.Maybe, but they have to push through some variety of nominee before the mid-terms, when they've guaranteed to lose the House of Reps and will be blocked from appointing anyone onto the Supreme Court after that.
The House of Representatives has no say in the judicial appointment process. It's purely Executive and Senate. As long as the Republicans hold the Senate, they can try again afterwards.As for simple words destroying a career. It this is destroying a career it didn't even take an accusation to destroy the last Democrat nomination's career so you can take a jump if that is your argument.
Nobody was making unproven allegations against Garland or his character, and Garland's career is not destroyed. Last I checked, he was still hearing cases as Chief Justice of the DC Circuit. That was a simple case of "We don't like him, we have the votes to stop him" It's not even close to the same thing. It was above-board, and it was clearly within process. It's distasteful, yes, but the bottom line is that the Senate hasn't looked simply at 'is the guy qualified to be a good judge' in decades.0 -
Is there a point to any of Mitchell's questions?0
-
does anyone else see an ulterior motive from the doctor?0
-
It is almost like there should be an investigation to make this on board. Wonder why that was blocked? This was what Republicans wanted and it is what they are getting. The he said she said stuff you are complaining about is all on conservatives right now.Manic Moran wrote: »So in usual Manic Moran style, Yes the GOP are wrong.... but those Democrats.... they are the real evil. Them playing politics is definitely worse than us Conservatives standing by an alleged sexual predator.
Oh, bull.
If you haven't figured out by now, I'm something of a stickler for processes, and something of a cynic on politicians, especially in a hyper-partisan environment.
And you've hit the nail on the head: "alleged sexual predator". It doesn't take much to make an allegation. It doesn't take a single mine to make a minefield, just put up a sign. Do you not see an inherent problem with "someone said something from three decades ago, with no evidence" affecting the course of the country? Today it's an allegation of sexual predation. Tomorrow it's espionage. Then it's child abuse. Standards exist in the legal system for a reason. This is extra-judicial, with no rules, except those which the politicians decide to play by. I don't like playing by the rules of any politician for just these sorts of reasons.Maybe, but they have to push through some variety of nominee before the mid-terms, when they've guaranteed to lose the House of Reps and will be blocked from appointing anyone onto the Supreme Court after that.
The House of Representatives has no say in the judicial appointment process. It's purely Executive and Senate. As long as the Republicans hold the Senate, they can try again afterwards.As for simple words destroying a career. It this is destroying a career it didn't even take an accusation to destroy the last Democrat nomination's career so you can take a jump if that is your argument.
Nobody was making unproven allegations against Garland or his character, and Garland's career is not destroyed. Last I checked, he was still hearing cases as Chief Justice of the DC Circuit. That was a simple case of "We don't like him, we have the votes to stop him" It's not even close to the same thing. It was above-board, and it was clearly within process. It's distasteful, yes, but the bottom line is that the Senate hasn't looked simply at 'is the guy qualified to be a good judge' in decades.
I have no idea why people keep harping on about 3 decades like it is even mildly relevant.
So if Garland's career was not destroyed why would Kavanagh's? Seems a bit hypocritical no?
Finally I would consider this very relevant to whether or not he can be a good judge. A sexual assaulter should certainly not be ruling on similar cases IMO.0 -
Manic, there are at least three complaints about his behaviour. Your processes are supposed to root out problematic candidates.
Garland was not problematic in the way Kavanaugh was. Process rooted out Garland. It has to be dragged screaming into possibly rooting out Kavanaugh.
So here's the question, do you support processes that root out clean candidates but not candidates with qs about sexual behaviour, drinking, honesty to Senate and finances? Because if you are a stickler for that you are a stickler for failing processes.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Sassygirl1999 wrote: »does anyone else see an ulterior motive from the doctor?
Does anyone else see an ulterior motive from Sassygirl's continuous, thinly veiled attempts to discredit Dr. Ford?0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Oh, bull.
If you haven't figured out by now, I'm something of a stickler for processes, and something of a cynic on politicians, especially in a hyper-partisan environment.
And you've hit the nail on the head: "alleged sexual predator". It doesn't take much to make an allegation. It doesn't take a single mine to make a minefield, just put up a sign. Do you not see an inherent problem with "someone said something from three decades ago, with no evidence" affecting the course of the country? Today it's an allegation of sexual predation. Tomorrow it's espionage. Then it's child abuse. Standards exist in the legal system for a reason. This is extra-judicial, with no rules, except those which the politicians decide to play by. I don't like playing by the rules of any politician for just these sorts of reasons.
The House of Representatives has no say in the judicial appointment process. It's purely Executive and Senate. As long as the Republicans hold the Senate, they can try again afterwards.
Nobody was making unproven allegations against Garland or his character, and Garland's career is not destroyed. Last I checked, he was still hearing cases as Chief Justice of the DC Circuit. That was a simple case of "We don't like him, we have the votes to stop him" It's not even close to the same thing. It was above-board, and it was clearly within process. It's distasteful, yes, but the bottom line is that the Senate hasn't looked simply at 'is the guy qualified to be a good judge' in decades.
The high legal standard in criminal trials is because of the punitive result of a guilty verdict. The state punishes you for it. But you cannot expect people to make decisions based on that standard. It's just not reasonable.0 -
Is there a point to any of Mitchell's questions?
I think at the moment she's trying to catch her profiting from this, possibly via payment from Dems. Which she clearly isn't.
In terms of what Manic says in terms of what's stopping anyone coming forward with false allegations, Ford is viewed as credible and it has reached this point. Her life has been uprooted and others have come forward revealing similar credible allegations. If I were one of those women, I would be terrified as their lives will be ruined and uprooted for foreseeable. Only credible allegations get this far and it's of zero benefit to the women's lives to come forward..
So Manic Moran, simple question. Do you view the allegations as credible?0 -
She's trying to establish the likes of Feinstein leaked the letter. Its seems more of an attack on how the Dems have handled this rather than trying to clear Kavanaugh at the moment.
Yep and she's established that Ford isn't really scared of flying. But that's pointless. Either poke holes in her assault story or talk about the weather. Actually a discussion on the weather might be more rigorous and pointed.0 -
Is there a point to any of Mitchell's questions?
I think she was dealing with a totally unpleasant task from her perspective and did not have her best day out as her heart wasnt in it.... Aaand, she had to appear folksy and all nice and not be seen to attack the witness.. Blasey Ford was totally credible..0 -
jooksavage wrote: »Big respect. This woman is clearly petrified. But there she is, voice trembling and close to cracking, delivering an articulate, compelling testimony. It makes me sick to even think what that pig in the whitehouse will have to say about her later on twitter. This is what dignity looks like.
+100.
Dr. Ford comes across as very sincere and honest. Kavanaugh is toast.
0 -
I hope Lindsay grahams family is happy with him. He's one gob****e. Let's hope non of his family ever went or go through what Dr Ford went through.0
-
so my conclusion after that
Ford seems very creditable
Grassley is awful, should be nowhere near this.
Mitchell had a horrible format to work with which she admitted to towards the end.
This should have been investigated more and its dire the republicans tried to rush this through
Feinstein sat on the letter and leaked it for political gains. Horrible cynical politician.0 -
I hope Lindsay grahams family is happy with him. He's one gob****e. Let's hope non of his family ever went or go through what Dr Ford went through.
He has turned into a right little &*^% lately. He always kind of, was but he did go through an anti-Trump phase and seem reasonable. Lately though he has turned into an extremist and cosied up to Trump (golf etc) . I guess he does wantSessions job for some crazy reason.0 -
Advertisement
-
SimonTemplar wrote: »I'd love a Coke right now.
Haha! I thought the same. I'd say they owe a million or so in product placement fees to the GoFundMe page....0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement