How to frame Kavanaugh or any other innocent man

[Ringo84]

How many days did Diane Feinstein have the letter from Ms Ford before it became public? Answer 60 days. The total number of days from announcing BK as the nominee was 90 days. So two thirds the time for confirmation Feinstein has this letter and drops it at 80 days in.

This is withholding evidence.

Ford asked her not to release the letter until she was comfortable, so she didn't do it. In case you missed it, Democrats are not the majority in the Senate and have no power to call for an investigation. Donny does, though, and for some reason, he (and the Republicans on the committee) refuse to do so.
Ringo

 

[redleghunter]

Ford asked her not to release the letter until she was comfortable, so she didn't do it. In case you missed it, Democrats are not the majority in the Senate and have no power to call for an investigation. Donny does, though, and for some reason, he (and the Republicans on the committee) refuse to do so.
Ringo

Not true. Feinstein had information the full committee could have investigated if she brought it forward. Ms Ford wanted privacy and that is what she and Kavanaugh would have had if they reviewed in private as is usually done in discreet situations. She withheld the evidence and then unloaded it through the media at the 11th hour.

 

[Ringo84]

"Reviewed in private" as in "quietly kill it so that the evidence and allegations wouldn't see the light of day".

If Feinstein had done everything Republicans have grandstanded (grandstood?) about, they would have found another reason to say that this was ""politicized"". It's a classic case of 'the butter is sliced too thick'.

Meanwhile, if you want to bluster about """"politicization"""", I think Merritt Garland might have a few words to say about that.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

That's not to mention the fact that whining about "process" does not, in fact, "prove" that anything Ford said is untrue, or change the fact that she was credible in her testimony and Kavanaugh was not.
Ringo

 

[redleghunter]

"Reviewed in private" as in "quietly kill it so that the evidence and allegations wouldn't see the light of day".

If Feinstein had done everything Republicans have grandstanded (grandstood?) about, they would have found another reason to say that this was ""politicized"". It's a classic case of 'the butter is sliced too thick'.

Meanwhile, if you want to bluster about """"politicization"""", I think Merritt Garland might have a few words to say about that.
Ringo

Why do you think Ms Ford gave the letter to Senator Feinstein? What do you think she expected to happen with her allegations? Just collect dust in a desk drawer.

Senator Grassley explained how private matters at the request of the accuser are handled and investigated.

 

[redleghunter]

"Reviewed in private" as in "quietly kill it so that the evidence and allegations wouldn't see the light of day".

If Feinstein had done everything Republicans have grandstanded (grandstood?) about, they would have found another reason to say that this was ""politicized"". It's a classic case of 'the butter is sliced too thick'.

Meanwhile, if you want to bluster about """"politicization"""", I think Merritt Garland might have a few words to say about that.
Ringo

Dude she held the letter for 60 days. What purpose did the letter serve if it was not going to be investigated?

 

[redleghunter]

That's not to mention the fact that whining about "process" does not, in fact, "prove" that anything Ford said is untrue, or change the fact that she was credible in her testimony and Kavanaugh was not.
Ringo

Why was she credible and he was not?

 

[Ringo84]

I don't know, "dude"; I'm not Ms Ford. She addressed that at her hearing today, and I honestly don't remember what she said. It's been a long day.

Grassley refuses to hold any kind of investigation on these claims, so I'm not really interested in what he says on the matter. If he wants it cleared up, that's the path to doing it. Ford - you know, that woman who is totally lying - agreed to one, and Kavanaugh hemmed and hawed and whined about how much he loved to play basketball.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Why was she credible and he was not?

Because when she was asked questions, she answered them clearly. She didn't weep about calendars. She didn't sputter about how much she loves beer. She didn't sit there with a blank look on her face after being directly asked if she wanted an investigation. After two hours being grilled by (someone I understand is a seasoned) prosecutor, she was not caught in a lie or with any inconsistencies.
Ringo

 

[redleghunter]

Because when she was asked questions, she answered them clearly. She didn't weep about calendars. She didn't sputter about how much she loves beer. She didn't sit there with a blank look on her face after being directly asked if she wanted an investigation. After two hours being grilled by (someone I understand is a seasoned) prosecutor, she was not caught in a lie or with any inconsistencies.
Ringo

No she bobbed her head and gave a lot of I don’t know type answers. She looked sedated.

 

[redleghunter]

Because when she was asked questions, she answered them clearly. She didn't weep about calendars. She didn't sputter about how much she loves beer. She didn't sit there with a blank look on her face after being directly asked if she wanted an investigation. After two hours being grilled by (someone I understand is a seasoned) prosecutor, she was not caught in a lie or with any inconsistencies.
Ringo

After being shown a map of her neighborhood she could not pick out her own house.

 

[Ringo84]

Uh oh...not the Zillow argument!

Yeah...this is not an "inconsistency" at all if the map is unclear. She said that "100%" it was Brett Kavanaugh. For his part, Kavanaugh wailed and gnashed his teeth, reiterated his love for beer, and equivocated when asked about an investigation.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Apparently, Democrats are not the only ones who think that Kavanaugh should be investigated:
American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics

Have they ever done anything like this before? Honest question because I don't know.

That's not all:
The Editors: It is time for the Kavanaugh nomination to be withdrawn

A Jesuit magazine that, from my understanding, originally backed Kavanaugh.

Looks like the only people who don't want to investigate are
1) Republicans
2) Kavanaugh
3) Judge

Most interesting.
Ringo

 

[BigDaddy4]

All sounds good until you factor in the fact that all of you seem to think that the mere existence of an investigation - even of a supposedly innocent man - is a bridge too far.

Seems like Kavanaugh wants all the benefit of the doubt without any of the proof.
Ringo

The bridge is not too far. There is a toll booth in the way, blocking passage of said bridge. The fare for the toll booth is an actual police report to be submitted by Dr. Ford. Once submitted the toll booth gate will open and allow for investigators to investigate.

But please, keep showing off your ignorance of the law, despite the numerous times you have been told what the process is.

 

[Ringo84]

This is what I mean by moving the goalposts. "We'll only accept that Ford is telling the truth if she files a police report". If she filed a police report, the argument would immediately change to "well, it wasn't 36 years ago, so it doesn't count."

The woman handled two hours of grilling from a skilled prosecutor and was not caught in any inconsistencies. She did so calmly and rationally. Brett couldn't go five minutes without blubbering about calendars. That the goalposts would now be moving to "well she didn't file a police report so it's all a lie!" is telling - especially when some Republicans are now calling for an investigation.
Ringo

 

[USincognito]

Well, if we're going that route, shouldn't we also look at how "invested" Kavanaugh's accuser is? Radical leftist attending Trump protests. I would that you'd find this fishy also.

Radical leftist? LOL

I have a bunch of friends who attended the March for Science. None of them are "leftists" and certainly none of them are "radical".

 

[rambot]

If we are doing helpful checklists around someone who's a victim I thought after 9 pages we could include this one:

How to rape a woman and get away with it in America:

1)Have sexual intercourse with her against her will.

*Threaten her safety and inform her that no one would believe her* (Optional but helpful)
*Be rich and exert pressure upon her* (Optional but helpful)

2)Deny it staunchly and become offended when suggested it was rape.


That is literally all you need to do.

 

[Calminian]

If we are doing helpful checklists around someone who's a victim I thought after 9 pages we could include this one:

How to rape a woman and get away with it in America:

1)Have sexual intercourse with her against her will.

*Threaten her safety and inform her that no one would believe her* (Optional but helpful)
*Be rich and exert pressure upon her* (Optional but helpful)

2)Deny it staunchly and become offended when suggested it was rape.


That is literally all you need to do.

Oh, and then cause her to magically forget every possible detail, expect who the guy was and how many beers she had. LOL!

 

[Calminian]

Radical leftist? LOL

I have a bunch of friends who attended the March for Science. None of them are "leftists" and certainly none of them are "radical".

She was at anti-Trump rallies. But you knew that.

 

[USincognito]

She was at anti-Trump rallies. But you knew that.

She was at the March for Science, just as I stated. If Trump and his supporters want to see the March for Science as anti-Trump, well, that's up to them.