lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 28, 2018 20:09:15 GMT
Whew! I need another beer! I don’t drink so please have one for me too! Heehee. You know, beer wasn't even on my mind yesterday until the hearing. Because, c'mon, how can I not after this: "We drank beer. Uh, my friends and I, boys and girls, yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. Yeah, we drank beer and I said, sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers. We drank beer. We liked beer." Can you blame me? (Did you see Mitchell trying to stifle a smile/laugh after that?)
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Sept 28, 2018 20:10:04 GMT
She would have been seen as unhinged and aggressive. But not because she was telling the truth, because she hates Republicans and wants to stick it to them. Even if she never mentioned them. Her tears would have been assumed to be staged dramatics. The double standards in how women and men's actions, reactions and emotions are perceived infuriates me. Exactly. I've already seen Dr. Ford criticized for using a "fake little girl victim" voice in her testimony to garner sympathy (by some woman who supposedly saw her speak at a symposium once). Color me not surprised. If their allegations are true, as she is a professor there are probably one or two students who could provide additional input.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Sept 28, 2018 20:11:26 GMT
I don’t drink so please have one for me too! Heehee. You know, beer wasn't even on my mind yesterday until the hearing. Because, c'mon, how can I not after this: "We drank beer. Uh, my friends and I, boys and girls, yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. Yeah, we drank beer and I said, sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers. We drank beer. We liked beer." Can you blame me? (Did you see Mitchell trying to stifle a smile/laugh after that?) In that moment he truly sounded like a frat boy. It was embarrassing.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 28, 2018 20:13:30 GMT
Yeah, obviously he didn’t pay attention to Yale's motto: Lux et veritas (light and truth)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 9:36:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 20:16:32 GMT
The fact that you took what I said, threw it out and created your own words to stuff in my mouth says everything one needs to know about you. Thanks for a worthless opinion on words no one said. If you count children under 18 then your numbers were wrong. You removed them from being valid not me. It isn’t my fault you either don’t count those under 18 as being Worth representing or suck at math. Which one is it? Under 18 do not vote, so they were not removed from the median age of voters. So once again, thanks for your worthless opinion of words no one said.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 28, 2018 20:19:24 GMT
I forget who posted The New Yorker link... Mia Farrow sure did raise a smart kid!! I am just posting a few paragraphs.. E-mails Show That Republican Senate Staff Stymied a Kavanaugh Accuser’s Effort to Give Testimony(Deborah Ramirez) By Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer 9:05 A.M. Sept 28, 2018 ** From the start, Ramirez’s legal team had called for the F.B.I. to conduct an investigation. Her attorney John Clune told Davis that Ramirez was seeking an F.B.I. investigation and said that, “on appropriate terms, she would also agree to be interviewed in person.” But when Clune proposed a phone call several times, Davis repeatedly insisted that Clune answer two questions: Did Ramirez possess evidence in addition to what was in the New Yorker article? And was she willing to provide testimony to the committee’s investigators?** ...........Clune continued to try to schedule a call with a Democratic staffer on the e-mail thread, but Davis wrote back to him, saying that, “before we discuss a phone call or any other next steps, again, we need to have the following information,” and reiterated the two questions. At that point, Heather Sawyer, the Democratic staffer who was copied on the e-mails in accordance with committee policy, wrote to Davis, “As you’re aware, Ms. Ramirez’s counsel have repeatedly requested to speak with the Committee, on a bipartisan basis, to determine how to proceed. You refused. I’ve never encountered an instance where the Committee has refused even to speak with an individual or counsel. I am perplexed as to why this is happening here, except that it seems designed to ensure that the Majority can falsely claim that Ms. Ramirez and her lawyers refused to cooperate. That simply is not true.”...............Davis responded, “I have not refused to speak with anyone. I am simply requesting – for the 7th time now over the last 48 hours – that Ms. Ramirez’s attorneys provide the Senate Judiciary Committee with any evidence that they have before we move to the next steps.” ( ** Sawyer did not respond to a request for comment. A Democratic staffer responding on her behalf confirmed that the e-mails were accurate. ** ...............Our staff asked on seven separate occasions over the course of 48 hours for any evidence or statement Ms. Ramirez would be willing to provide. Unfortunately, her counsels have not provided the committee with any such material to review.” The aide noted that the committee asked Kavanaugh about the allegation during an interview this week................ “Almost immediately in our correspondence, they became less interested in hearing from her and more interested in discovering what witnesses we could bring forward. Since it was only the majority staff that made these demands, as the minority staff questioned those demands as unprecedented, we became suspicious that any disclosures we might file would be shared inappropriately with Judge Kavanaugh or others to prepare and attack Debbie’s account,” ................F.B.I. investigation where Judge Kavanaugh could be questioned under oath, , we didn’t feel comfortable releasing this information without their assurances. ** www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/e-mails-show-republican-senate-staff-stymied-a-kavanaugh-accusers-effort-to-give-testimonyIt seems some of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff members were sharing information with Kavanaugh! My understanding according to the interview with Ramirez's lawyer was that the phone conference/Q&A did happen except that only the Dems participated; none of the Repubs did.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 9:36:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 20:27:44 GMT
He's fighting for his and his family's lives from being ended by nut jobs who have decided he was guilty the minute they heard a rumor of an accusation. He's fighting for the stigma of the rest of his life being known as a person who would attempt to rape someone. He's fighting for a career he spent a lifetime of dedicated service to build. then why doesn't he want that fight to include a REAL investigation by the FBI? because he doesn't. THAT would end it once and for all. He asked for a hearing the very next day after the accusations, has said he welcomed an investigation by the FBI and now there will be one.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 28, 2018 20:29:44 GMT
My understanding according to the interview with Ramirez's lawyer was that the phone conference/Q&A did happen except that only the Dems participated; none of the Repubs did. Yes, the call did eventually happen with Dems.. The aide noted that the committee asked Kavanaugh about the allegation during an interview this week.I was surprised that the aide so willingly admitted that the information was shared with Kavanaugh... GOOD reason not to provide too much info at that level.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 28, 2018 20:32:09 GMT
How would you have felt about Dr. Ford if she were angry and belligerent to Ms. Mitchell and the Senators? Would depend on how the questions were being asked. If the line of questioning was accusing her of lying or having an agenda then I would expect her to react in an angry and forceful way. Which is why Rachel Mitchell was brought on board—-to poke holes in DR. Ford’s testimony as someone who Ho has done just that before. She failed in a sense, which is why the Republicans went ape shit when it was kavanaugh’s turn and Rachel was silent.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 28, 2018 20:34:54 GMT
He asked for a hearing the very next day after the accusations, has said he welcomed an investigation by the FBI and now there will be one. Kavanaugh did ask for a hearing the next day, before more info was gathered.... He NEVER, to my knowledge, and I read a lot, asked for the FBI to investigate more/reopen the background investigation. When asked about the FBI during sworn testimony yesterday by Sen Durbin, he sat SILENT.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 9:36:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 20:35:33 GMT
How would you have felt about Dr. Ford if she were angry and belligerent to Ms. Mitchell and the Senators? Would depend on how the questions were being asked. If the line of questioning was accusing her of lying or having an agenda then I would expect her to react in an angry and forceful way. Oh but they did question her memory. They questioned her political motivations for coming forward. They absolutely DID insinuate she had an agenda. All the questions about her flying habits....
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 28, 2018 20:36:31 GMT
Related Article: Kavanaugh case opens old wounds for many survivors I don't think Blasey Ford is lying, and I don't think Judge Kavanaugh is lying. I think there is a real doubt about what happened at that house 36 years ago. That doubt would prevent Judge Kavanaugh from being convicted of a crime based on these allegations. But the same doubt may be enough to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court. I don't understand what this writer is saying. If Ford isn't lying and Kavanaugh isn't lying, then what are we supposed to think? That K was too drunk and honestly doesn't remember?
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Sept 28, 2018 20:37:58 GMT
He asked for a hearing the very next day after the accusations, has said he welcomed an investigation by the FBI and now there will be one. Kavanaugh did ask for a hearing the next day.... He NEVER, to my knowledge, and I read a lot, asked for the FBI to investigate more/reopen the background investigation. When asked during sworn testimony yesterday by Sen Durbin, he sat SILENT. I listened and watched the whole thing, as well as all the special news coverage last night. You are correct; he never ONCE said anything about wanting or welcoming the FBI actually investigating further. He did repeat (in a pretty whiny voice) "I'll do whatever the committee wants" more than once- and I do hope he's reminded of that, since the COMMITTEE is the body that is now recommending further investigating.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Sept 28, 2018 20:40:32 GMT
He asked for a hearing the very next day after the accusations, has said he welcomed an investigation by the FBI and now there will be one. Kavanaugh did ask for a hearing the next day, before more info was gathered.... He NEVER, to my knowledge, and I read a lot, asked for the FBI to investigate more/reopen the background investigation. When asked about the FBI during sworn testimony yesterday by Sen Durbin, he sat SILENT. Yes, Kavanaugh tries to pretend that an investigation and a hearing are the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Sept 28, 2018 20:42:54 GMT
Related Article: Kavanaugh case opens old wounds for many survivors I don't think Blasey Ford is lying, and I don't think Judge Kavanaugh is lying. I think there is a real doubt about what happened at that house 36 years ago. That doubt would prevent Judge Kavanaugh from being convicted of a crime based on these allegations. But the same doubt may be enough to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court. I don't understand what this writer is saying. If Ford isn't lying and Kavanaugh isn't lying, then what are we supposed to think? That K was too drunk and honestly doesn't remember? I think what this is saying is that this person believes Ford/Kavanaugh are telling the truth as they remember it, either because of drinking or because of how the memory holds on to different types of experiences. In this cause, it was traumatic for Ford so she is more likely to have held on to the memory, and just another drunk evening for Kavanaugh so he wasn't as likely to remember.
|
|
|
Post by cbet on Sept 28, 2018 20:43:23 GMT
Related Article: Kavanaugh case opens old wounds for many survivors I don't think Blasey Ford is lying, and I don't think Judge Kavanaugh is lying. I think there is a real doubt about what happened at that house 36 years ago. That doubt would prevent Judge Kavanaugh from being convicted of a crime based on these allegations. But the same doubt may be enough to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court. I don't understand what this writer is saying. If Ford isn't lying and Kavanaugh isn't lying, then what are we supposed to think? That K was too drunk and honestly doesn't remember? I think that is what the writer is saying. And you know, I absolutely believe Dr. Ford. But, based on things I remember from turning 18 in 1980, I absolutely believe that Kavanaugh doesn't remember - a combination of too much to drink and the incident not being that out-of-the-ordinary for him. Life-altering for her. Just another weekend for him.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Sept 28, 2018 20:43:57 GMT
Kavanaugh did ask for a hearing the next day, before more info was gathered.... He NEVER, to my knowledge, and I read a lot, asked for the FBI to investigate more/reopen the background investigation. When asked about the FBI during sworn testimony yesterday by Sen Durbin, he sat SILENT. Yes, Kavanaugh tries to pretend that an investigation and a hearing are the same thing. Well, sure. Cause, why would he know the difference? /s
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 28, 2018 20:44:21 GMT
That K was too drunk and honestly doesn't remember? Yes... The writer thinks that Kavanaugh has no memory of things that may have happened, which is common with 'blackout drunks' I lived with one, 'blackout drunk', who had no idea on many occasions what he had done. Back than pictures helped! Small potatoes........ An example people that snore refuse to accept that they do until someone records them... Some sleepwalkers have no idea what they have done or even where the have been.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Sept 28, 2018 20:44:37 GMT
This is brilliant...
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 28, 2018 20:45:06 GMT
then why doesn't he want that fight to include a REAL investigation by the FBI? because he doesn't. THAT would end it once and for all. He asked for a hearing the very next day after the accusations, has said he welcomed an investigation by the FBI and now there will be one. Just please be precise if you're going to invoke his words. Kavanaugh: "I welcome d any kind of investigation – Senate, FBI..." Not true – he never asked for an FBI investigation. Not in yesterday's hearing, not when McCallum of Fox asked him about it in his interview, not during any declarations he made. In fact, during yesterday's hearing he was asked nine times, in various ways, if he believes he should ask for an FBI investigation. All he did was deflect back to the committee.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 9:36:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 20:46:58 GMT
If they thought the calendar would be evidence in their favor I wonder what's out there that is incriminating (and they know the FBI would find). Kavanaugh's behavior & words in the hearing showed us he is not qualified for this job - in spite of the fact he has made it this far in his career. I want to thank Bill (spice guy) Penzey for his email blast today - it didn't exactly cheer me up but it helped. "The thing about flat-out denying reality is that there’s no stepping back from it. There’s no negotiation afterwards that arrives at some mutually agreeable spot. Once you choose the Lance Armstrong approach, once you choose to attack those just doing their job by exposing your crimes, you’ve started a timer that, when it goes ding, means you are done. To go the full Lance is to understand that all there is ahead for you is lifetime suspension. Republicans are now on an end of days run. All there is left for them is to do as much damage as they can, to the benefit of their benefactors, before time runs out. November 6th is coming soon. Remember. And in fairness to Mr. Armstrong, as much as he cheated and destroyed lives, he also tried to do some good. Not so much with the privileged guys we saw yesterday. Heal the world, do lots of cooking this weekend," Bill Problem with this is, it might not be "the Lance Armstrong approach" it might just be "the victim of Mattress Girl approach".
|
|
moodyblue
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,255
Location: Western Illinois
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2014 21:07:23 GMT
|
Post by moodyblue on Sept 28, 2018 20:47:26 GMT
Related Article: Kavanaugh case opens old wounds for many survivors I don't think Blasey Ford is lying, and I don't think Judge Kavanaugh is lying. I think there is a real doubt about what happened at that house 36 years ago. That doubt would prevent Judge Kavanaugh from being convicted of a crime based on these allegations. But the same doubt may be enough to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court. I don't understand what this writer is saying. If Ford isn't lying and Kavanaugh isn't lying, then what are we supposed to think? That K was too drunk and honestly doesn't remember? I think that's exactly what is being implied - that K drank to excess and has no memory of that event. Or K's argument that it really happened to her, but it wasn't him? Given what Mark Judge has said about his own drinking and blackouts, and what some others have said about K's heavy drinking, I do think it's possible they don't have much, if any, memory about this event. Maybe they have enough to know they don't want to talk to the FBI? Maybe they know they did something, but not exactly what happened?
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 28, 2018 20:52:29 GMT
That K was too drunk and honestly doesn't remember? Yes... The writer thinks that Kavanaugh has no memory of things that may have happened, which is common with 'blackout drunks' I lived with one, 'blackout drunk', who had no idea on many occasions what he had done. Back than pictures helped! Small potatoes........ An example people that snore refuse to accept that they do until someone records them... Some sleepwalkers have no idea what they have done or even where the have been. dewryce, cbet, revirdsuba99 - Then I suppose the investigation will uncover some truths to see if this is the case (interview witnesses, etc). I understand what you're all saying...of course, it's possible, but I'm sorry, I'm just not sold on it right now.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 28, 2018 20:54:56 GMT
He asked for a hearing the very next day after the accusations, has said he welcomed an investigation by the FBI and now there will be one. Kavanaugh did ask for a hearing the next day, before more info was gathered.... He NEVER, to my knowledge, and I read a lot, asked for the FBI to investigate more/reopen the background investigation. When asked about the FBI during sworn testimony yesterday by Sen Durbin, he sat SILENT. You are correct. He was asked repeatedly, even as far as the senators questioning him saying “just answer yes or no” and he still did not answer. The troll only views the right wing rhetoric.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Sept 28, 2018 20:55:57 GMT
I don't understand what this writer is saying. If Ford isn't lying and Kavanaugh isn't lying, then what are we supposed to think? That K was too drunk and honestly doesn't remember? I think that is what the writer is saying. And you know, I absolutely believe Dr. Ford. But, based on things I remember from turning 18 in 1980, I absolutely believe that Kavanaugh doesn't remember - a combination of too much to drink and the incident not being that out-of-the-ordinary for him. Life-altering for her. Just another weekend for him. Jinx! I agree, except that I don't have confidence at all that he doesn't remember anything. Not remember it exactly as she does? Sure. But he was being very cagey in his answers, not at all forthright. We need to ask why. Why not be direct and say, "Yes, my yearbook has a lot of immature items about sexual behaviors. Looking back I'm embarrassed." Because it did and he was dodgy and frankly, untruthful in his answers. Why? An if he was misleading and dishonest about that, why should we believe other questions he has answered about that time in his life?
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 28, 2018 20:56:55 GMT
I don't understand what this writer is saying. If Ford isn't lying and Kavanaugh isn't lying, then what are we supposed to think? That K was too drunk and honestly doesn't remember? I think that's exactly what is being implied - that K drank to excess and has no memory of that event. Or K's argument that it really happened to her, but it wasn't him? Given what Mark Judge has said about his own drinking and blackouts, and what some others have said about K's heavy drinking, I do think it's possible they don't have much, if any, memory about this event. Maybe they have enough to know they don't want to talk to the FBI? Maybe they know they did something, but not exactly what happened? Ok, thanks. Like I told the others I can understand and hope the investigation unearths all the truths. It's just that right now I'm not totally convinced.
|
|
Montannie
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,486
Location: Big Sky Country
Jun 25, 2014 20:32:35 GMT
|
Post by Montannie on Sept 28, 2018 20:57:10 GMT
I don't understand what this writer is saying. If Ford isn't lying and Kavanaugh isn't lying, then what are we supposed to think? That K was too drunk and honestly doesn't remember? I think that's exactly what is being implied - that K drank to excess and has no memory of that event. Or K's argument that it really happened to her, but it wasn't him? Given what Mark Judge has said about his own drinking and blackouts, and what some others have said about K's heavy drinking, I do think it's possible they don't have much, if any, memory about this event. Maybe they have enough to know they don't want to talk to the FBI? Maybe they know they did something, but not exactly what happened? Agreed. And I read something today about surveys of men and sexual violence where they admitted to the facts of a sexual assault -- sexual contact without the consent of the woman -- but did not consider it to be sexual assault.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 28, 2018 20:57:48 GMT
Would depend on how the questions were being asked. If the line of questioning was accusing her of lying or having an agenda then I would expect her to react in an angry and forceful way. Oh but they did question her memory. They questioned her political motivations for coming forward. They absolutely DID insinuate she had an agenda. All the questions about her flying habits.... Not only did they question her motives, they asked who paid for her polygraph (casting shade on her for the benefit of those publicly viewing the hearing), as well as the academy wing performances of Grassley and graham shouting that this was politically motivated and that the Democrats were behind the entire thing.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 28, 2018 20:58:05 GMT
dt has ordered that the FBI reopen the background investigation
Limited to issues already in the public.. so hopefully press articles too......... They are in public view!
Kavanaugh I have been investigated many times and etc,.................................. I will cooperate in whatever they ask............. etc..........
|
|
jayfab
Drama Llama
procastinating
Posts: 5,591
Jun 26, 2014 21:55:15 GMT
|
Post by jayfab on Sept 28, 2018 20:59:49 GMT
I saw this on fb and it was posted by a professor from Stanford I believe....maybe the senate should show this to the gop. Guys ask why women are so pissed off. Even guys with wives and daughters. Jackson Katz, a prominent social researcher, illustrates why. He's done it with hundreds of audiences: "I draw a line down the middle of a chalkboard, sketching a male symbol on one side and a female symbol on the other. Then I ask just the men: What steps do you guys take, on a daily basis, to prevent yourselves from being sexually assaulted? At first there is a kind of awkward silence as the men try to figure out if they've been asked a trick question. The silence gives way to a smattering of nervous laughter. Occasionally, a young a guy will raise his hand and say, 'I stay out of prison.' This is typically followed by another moment of laughter, before someone finally raises his hand and soberly states, 'Nothing. I don't think about it.' Then I ask the women the same question. What steps do you take on a daily basis to prevent yourselves from being sexually assaulted? Women throughout the audience immediately start raising their hands. As the men sit in stunned silence, the women recount safety precautions they take as part of their daily routine. Hold my keys as a potential weapon. Look in the back seat of the car before getting in. Carry a cell phone. Don't go jogging at night. Lock all the windows when I sleep, even on hot summer nights. Be careful not to drink too much. Don't put my drink down and come back to it; make sure I see it being poured. Own a big dog. Carry Mace or pepper spray. Have an unlisted phone number. Have a man's voice on my answering machine. Park in well-lit areas. Don't use parking garages. Don't get on elevators with only one man, or with a group of men. Vary my route home from work. Watch what I wear. Don't use highway rest areas. Use a home alarm system. Don't wear headphones when jogging. Avoid forests or wooded areas, even in the daytime. Don't take a first-floor apartment. Go out in groups. Own a firearm. Meet men on first dates in public places. Make sure to have a car or cab fare. Don't make eye contact with men on the street. Make assertive eye contact with men on the street.” "Don't dress too sexy" "Don't smile at strangers" ― Jackson Katz, The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help (The first man to minor in women's studies at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, holds a master's degree from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and a Ph.D. in cultural studies and education from UCLA.) ALL of this. And what's sad and pathetic about this (to me) is that I don't even give these things a second thought. They're just ingrained in me. Yes, exactly. It's second nature to us.
|
|