(September 17, 2018 at 11:17 am)alpha male Wrote:

(September 14, 2018 at 4:26 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Too bad Feinstein had an apparent case of Catholicitis and sat on it for months.

Yeah, I think the logical inference from the timing is that they couldn't substantiate it, so they saved it for last-minute emotional effect.

Or that she just wanted to be sure that there was actually anything to the allegations, and due to the nature of the offense, it's really hard to actually corroborate.

Also, hopefully, there's enough senators pissed off at the news that his career is dead in the water... then again, our current president started off like this:





And he still managed to win the presidency, even when his chances should have been torpedoed before he left the podium.

If he still gets on the court, human decency is officially dead.

(September 17, 2018 at 11:30 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And all of the sudden; anonymous hearsay, about an account that we have little details on; and happened about 40 years ago, is evidence.  For some, it sometimes appears, that evidence and reason is heavily dependent on what narrative the wish to tell.

It's no longer anonymous. The woman has stepped forward. She names two men, both of which say it didn't happen. Absent corroborating evidence (there is none at this point to my knowledge), it would be a really bad precedent for this to derail Kavanaugh.

And, again, the fact that it was only made known to Democrats, and then held for this long, shows that it's being used for partisan effect.

It's an accusation, asshole  ( try to learn the diference ) not "evidence."  What is curious is how fascist morons are so quick to dismiss it when it is a member of your tribe but couldn't wait to pounce on Al Franken for much less.

You're a hypocrite, RR.  Go do penance or something because I'm pretty sure your fucking god does not approve.  Or maybe he does now that you all have re-defined him.

(September 17, 2018 at 11:37 am)Minimalist Wrote: It's an accusation, asshole  ( try to learn the diference ) not "evidence."

Correct, it shouldn't be considered evidence.

Quote:What is curious is how fascist morons are so quick to dismiss it when it is a member of your tribe but couldn't wait to pounce on Al Franken for much less.

As I recall it was other Dems who pressured Franken to quit.

---

Yep, here you go:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-c...SKBN1E02G4

Quote:Democrat Al Franken faced intense pressure from members of his own party on Wednesday to resign from the U.S. Senate over accusations of sexual misconduct.

Of course, in Franken's case, there was photographic evidence, multiple accusers, and it was much more recent. A very different case from Kavanaugh.

(September 17, 2018 at 11:37 am)Minimalist Wrote: It's an accusation, asshole  ( try to learn the diference ) not "evidence."  What is curious is how fascist morons are so quick to dismiss it when it is a member of your tribe but couldn't wait to pounce on Al Franken for much less.

You're a hypocrite, RR.

Where do you think I'm being hypocritical?    I think that you just like to call people names without reason or thinking things through.

(September 17, 2018 at 11:17 am)alpha male Wrote:

(September 14, 2018 at 4:26 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Too bad Feinstein had an apparent case of Catholicitis and sat on it for months.

Yeah, I think the logical inference from the timing is that they couldn't substantiate it, so they saved it for last-minute emotional effect.

The evidence for your inference is even weaker than that for the sexual assault itself. Given the partisan effort to block the Garland nomination, as well as the obvious partisan attempt to ram through a nomination without due consideration, I really could care less about your whining and your 'inferences'.

(September 17, 2018 at 11:36 am)alpha male Wrote:

(September 17, 2018 at 11:30 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And all of the sudden; anonymous hearsay, about an account that we have little details on; and happened about 40 years ago, is evidence.  For some, it sometimes appears, that evidence and reason is heavily dependent on what narrative the wish to tell.

It's no longer anonymous. The woman has stepped forward. She names two men, both of which say it didn't happen. Absent corroborating evidence (there is none at this point to my knowledge), it would be a really bad precedent for this to derail Kavanaugh.

And, again, the fact that it was only made known to Democrats, and then held for this long, shows that it's being used for partisan effect.

Thanks for the update; I was not aware of this.

(September 17, 2018 at 11:55 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: The evidence for your inference is even weaker than that for the sexual assault itself.

Why do you think the Dems waited until now, after hearings have been conducted, to release it?

Quote:Given the partisan effort to block the Garland nomination,

Whataboutism!

Quote:as well as the obvious partisan attempt to ram through a nomination without due consideration, I really could care less about your whining and your 'inferences'.

The fact that you're responding shows that you care.

(September 17, 2018 at 12:13 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(September 17, 2018 at 11:55 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: The evidence for your inference is even weaker than that for the sexual assault itself.

Why do you think the Dems waited until now, after hearings have been conducted, to release it?

Quote:Feinstein declined to publish the letter (let alone acknowledge its existence) because, as she later said, she’d been instructed by its author to not reveal her identity.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-beli...nomination

Even if there weren't a reason already in the record, your theory wouldn't gain any more traction. Perhaps you are correct. That wouldn't mean you have evidence of being correct.

The rush by Republicans to get the hearings and nomination over with has meant that there has been less time to bring such things forward. And we're still in the relevant period for bringing things forward. And the Republicans have made an effort to insure that the hearings be conducted before all the relevant information has been released, so complaining about the timing of this release is just stupid. So none of the facts support your speculation. Quite the opposite, it appears that partisan railroading on the part of Republicans is going to result in a confirmation without a full investigation and hearing of the facts. So if you want to blame someone for an untimely release of this information, I think we know where to look.

(September 17, 2018 at 12:44 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Feinstein declined to publish the letter (let alone acknowledge its existence) because, as she later said, she’d been instructed by its author to not reveal her identity.

She certainly could have released the gist of it without naming the author, evidenced by the fact that she eventually did.

Quote:Even if there weren't a reason already in the record, your theory wouldn't gain any more traction. Perhaps you are correct.  That wouldn't mean you have evidence of being correct.

The rush by Republicans to get the hearings and nomination over with has meant that there has been less time to bring such things forward.

Feinstein knew since July. This has nothing to do with Republican timetables.

Quote:And we're still in the relevant period for bringing things forward.  And the Republicans have made an effort to insure that the hearings be conducted before all the relevant information has been released, so complaining about the timing of this release is just stupid.

Feinstein knew in July. Hearings were held in September. July comes well before September.

Quote:So none of the facts support your speculation.  Quite the opposite, it appears that partisan railroading on the part of Republicans is going to result in a confirmation without a full investigation and hearing of the facts.

If Feinstein had spoken up in July, there would have been time for a full investigation. That's where the inference comes from.

1. Feinstein is against Kavanaugh
2. Feinstein had information regarding Kavanaugh in July
3. If Feinstein thought a full investigation of such information would result in Kavanaugh not being confirmed, she would have released the information before the hearings so that a full investigation could occur.
4. That she didn't release the information in a timely manner indicates that she does NOT think that a full investigation of the matter would have resulted in Kavanaugh not being confirmed

Quote:So if you want to blame someone for an untimely release of this information, I think we know where to look.

Of course, it's Rep's fault that information known by Dems in July wasn't released until September.