Kansas Crimson

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:09 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:02 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:59 am

I think there is a standard implicit in a confirmation proceeding (given the Senate's "advise and consent" role): it is the nominee's burden to persuade the Senate that the Senate should consent to the appointment. In my view, Kavanaugh's very, very clear partisan-ness and lack of candor render him presently unworthy of the Senate's consent.

Can you prove you didn’t rape her?

Monster!

I can't tell if you're intentionally or unintentionally missing the point: I don't think that it is necessary to find that he did rape Ford, or even probably raped Ford, to find that he lacks the basic candor and transparency that should be absolute prerequisites for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:59 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:37 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:09 am It is not surprising that things got left off as "he-said, she-said." It is only slightly less surprising that people are still suggesting that due process and the accuser having a burden of proof matter here, at all.

Insisting on no burden of proof whatsoever leads to this kind of dipshittery.

I think there is a standard implicit in a confirmation proceeding (given the Senate's "advise and consent" role): it is the nominee's burden to persuade the Senate that the Senate should consent to the appointment. In my view, Kavanaugh's very, very clear partisan-ness and lack of candor render him presently unworthy of the Senate's consent.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:32 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:09 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:02 am

Can you prove you didn’t rape her?

Monster!

I can't tell if you're intentionally or unintentionally missing the point: I don't think that it is necessary to find that he did rape Ford, or even probably raped Ford, to find that he lacks the basic candor and transparency that should be absolute prerequisites for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

What would transparency and candor look like for you? There are only so many ways to say “I didn’t do the things she is accusing me of doing.”

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:39 am

I think we are talking over one another here. I'll give you credit for opposing Kavanaugh on your perception of his lack of candor prior to the sexual assault allegations. And if the process had proceeded along normal lines after the hearings, then I wouldn't disagree with you at all about the evidentiary burden.

But it didn't stop there. He was subsequently accused of a crime -- several of them. And the accusations were made public in a way that revealed them as partisan and intentionally defamatory. (And no, I'm not saying Mrs. Ford intended to defame Kavanaugh. But then, as she testified yesterday, she never asked for her letter to be made public or for her charges to be used to further destroy the confirmation process. That's on the Ds.) The accusations were not discussed as part of the normal proceedings. They were not investigated as part of the normal investigative pattern. They were delivered specifically to be as incendiary as possible. And in that case -- and therefore given that yesterday's hearings were EXCLUSIVELY about the accusations -- it is entirely unfair and in violation of our deepest founding principles that such claims might be made and legitimized without even a scintilla of evidence. Or to put it another way, in normal circumstances, hearings like yesterday's are obviously NOT criminal trial. But yesterday's hearing WAS a trial in all but name. And to expect someone to defend himself against charges with exactly zero corroboration is a show trial, pure and simple.

You wanna judge a nominee based on his candor, that's fine. But by withholding the letter for the better part of two months and then, at the last minute, demanding a more thorough airing of the accusation, for explicitly partisan purposes, the Senate minority changed the rules.

Leawood wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:56 am DC, it isn't on the "Ds" the letter was made public. BEFORE the letter was made public, the witness talked to friends about what happened to her. Some of her friends suggested she go to the press. BEFORE the letter went public, the witness was confronted by members of the press at her work and home. How that happened we will never know, but it did not come from Senator Feinstein's office. So, your statement is incorrect, and the "Rs" painting that way are, on purpose, misrepresenting the record.

Leawood wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:56 am DC, it isn't on the "Ds" the letter was made public. BEFORE the letter was made public, the witness talked to friends about what happened to her. Some of her friends suggested she go to the press. BEFORE the letter went public, the witness was confronted by members of the press at her work and home. How that happened we will never know, but it did not come from Senator Feinstein's office. So, your statement is incorrect, and the "Rs" painting that way are, on purpose, misrepresenting the record.

The issue I have is the timeline. The ranking member had the letter. She should have given it to the chairman, with the confidentiality tag surrounding it. The chairman may be a dummy and a non-lawyer, but any person in his position would know what confidentiality means.

My problem with all of this is Senator Graham's grandstanding. He, and all the other "Rs" on the committee hid behind the female lawyer from Arizona during the the examination of Dr. Ford. Then, they usurped the lawyer when Judge Kavanaugh was examined and tried to paint the hearing as a partisan ploy. If Senator Graham had any balls, he would have questioned Dr. Ford himself, but he was too chicken because he, and the Texas Senators and the other "Rs", did not want to appear poorly in front of women, for political reasons. So they hid behind the Arizona lawyer.

In short, the "R" Senators in the end were pussies because they would not confront a witness face-to-face. Instead, they demeaned her, and the process, after she left and behind her back. They were cowards.

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:25 pm This is news. Who paid her? How much? What were the terms?

I'm sure you have sources.

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:28 pm So, you're lying again. Thanks for owning up to it.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:32 pm

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:28 pm So, you're lying again. Thanks for owning up to it.

Nope. Just not going to waste my time with you. Learned my lesson on the other board.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:55 am