Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[Mountain Man]

Yep, perfect timing only happens in Hollywood.

Like when Perry Mason is about to lose a case only for him to pull a key piece of evidence out of his pocket that proves the defendant's guilt beyond any doubt. I think Feinstein had visions of Raymond Burr dancing through her head when she forwarded that letter to the committee.

[lilpixieofterror]

Like when Perry Mason is about to lose a case only for him to pull a key piece of evidence out of his pocket that proves the defendant's guilt beyond any doubt. I think Feinstein had visions of Raymond Burr dancing through her head when she forwarded that letter to the committee.

[Cow Poke]

I always loved how MaGee could, just with a couple of key clicks, have 'on the big screen', the picture of the perpetrator running a red light by hacking into the city's red light cameras...

[lilpixieofterror]

I always loved how MaGee could, just with a couple of key clicks, have 'on the big screen', the picture of the perpetrator running a red light by hacking into the city's red light cameras...

Or Abby suddenly finding some missed piece of evidence that finds the real suspect. Or how Star Trek has it down to the second when a critical structural failure will happen. Or how House has a sudden inspiration that some random, rare and easily treatable condition, is killing their patient and knows just what to do. Hollywood is so amusing at times.

[Cow Poke]

Here's the live feed of the hearing this morning....

https://www.c-span.org/video/?451895...layEvent&live#

[carpedm9587]

Yes and no. I can only judge you by how you present yourself here. I think you've been pretty consistent in that. On the other hand, it's not as if my vantage point lumps you in will all the other atheists here or something; you all have distinct personalities which shine through, despite the limited perspective.

I can only report that most of the comments you make about me and/or my motivations are pretty wide of the mark. What you do with that information...

[Mountain Man]

Or Abby suddenly finding some missed piece of evidence that finds the real suspect. Or how Star Trek has it down to the second when a critical structural failure will happen. Or how House has a sudden inspiration that some random, rare and easily treatable condition, is killing their patient and knows just what to do. Hollywood is so amusing at times.

The problem is that writers are trying to write characters that are much smarter than they are, so the "flash of inspiration" is the only way they can think of to demonstrate a character's brilliance.

[carpedm9587]

Republicans sometimes destroy people and their families in the pursuit of their ends, and so do Democrats. If you're going to put your name out on the public stage, better be prepared for some political heat. If you can't take the heat...there are other rooms than the kitchen.

And again, is it about seeking justice or just about destroying a man and his family?

It's about seeking a desired political ends. That's how it works.

Would you hide a credible claim that effects the eligibility of the person you are interviewing until it comes clear you are in the minority about not hiring him?

Possibly. It depends on the circumstances. Again - it does not appear to me to have anything to do with the veracity of the claims.

At this point, we're going in circles and the horse is pretty much down to its last twitch. Last word to you.

[carpedm9587]

It doesn't, in itself, make them false. It does, however, make them suspect.

I guess it depends on your pre-disposition. I don't see a cause for being suspicious about the veracity of the claims. I am more suspicious about the veracity of "evidence" from both sides on the basis of the size of the objective: a seat on SCOTUS. I think either side is perfectly capable of whipping up whatever "facts" will suit their purpose with so much hanging in the balance. But I have no basis for knowing that they have. So...I am left with "I don't know."

[lilpixieofterror]

The problem is that writers are trying to write characters that are much smarter than they are, so the "flash of inspiration" is the only way they can think of to demonstrate a character's brilliance.

[Zymologist]

Republicans sometimes destroy people and their families in the pursuit of their ends, and so do Democrats. If you're going to put your name out on the public stage, better be prepared for some political heat. If you can't take the heat...there are other rooms than the kitchen.



It's about seeking a desired political ends. That's how it works.



Possibly. It depends on the circumstances. Again - it does not appear to me to have anything to do with the veracity of the claims.

At this point, we're going in circles and the horse is pretty much down to its last twitch. Last word to you.

Is this an example of what-aboutism?

[Sparko]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...encounter-with

[Cow Poke]

I guess it depends on your pre-disposition. I don't see a cause for being suspicious about the veracity of the claims. I am more suspicious about the veracity of "evidence" from both sides on the basis of the size of the objective: a seat on SCOTUS. I think either side is perfectly capable of whipping up whatever "facts" will suit their purpose with so much hanging in the balance. But I have no basis for knowing that they have. So...I am left with "I don't know."

I think this reveals your pre-disposition [sic], Carpe. The very fact that DiFi had all this information MONTHS ago, said absolutely nothing about it during the actual process, and literally violated the process rules by not bringing this to the attention of the committee in private.... you can hand-wave that away and see no cause for being suspicious....

[lilpixieofterror]

Republicans sometimes destroy people and their families in the pursuit of their ends, and so do Democrats. If you're going to put your name out on the public stage, better be prepared for some political heat. If you can't take the heat...there are other rooms than the kitchen.

Your example is...

It's about seeking a desired political ends. That's how it works.

So destroying a life based on hearsay is okay in your book, got it.

Possibly. It depends on the circumstances. Again - it does not appear to me to have anything to do with the veracity of the claims.

At this point, we're going in circles and the horse is pretty much down to its last twitch. Last word to you.

Like I said, zero hour timing is mostly a myth. It rarely happens that way in reality.

[carpedm9587]

Now I understand why you think we can't know the truth. You don't even know the facts. I'm not talking about denials of the accused. I'm talking about other witnesses named by Ford and Ramirez who they said would corroborate their claims, and in every case, the witnesses emphatically denied the accusations against Kavanaugh and said nothing like what the accusers described ever happened. In Ford's case, one of the witnesses was a lifelong friend who presumably has no reason to lie, and in Ramirez's case, one was her best friend who says she never saw or even heard about the incident in question.

I'm aware of all of these facts, MM. There's actually a good summary (reasonably neutral) here. I don't knwo what made you think I was referencing "denials of the accused." Judge was purported to be "in the room," so his denial is pretty much a given. Kavanaugh iwas the purported attacker, so his denial is pretty much a given. Keyser was apparently at the party and oblivious to the purported attack, so her lack of memory of anything is pretty understandable. I do not see at any point that Ford said "Keyser was a witness." She simply identified her as present at the party. The only witnesses Ford has apparently ever pointed to were Judge and Kavanaugh for the event itself, and her husband and three others who were witness to her later reported stories about it: Stories she reportedly told after the purported event but before Kavanaugh was even nominated (which is what the affidavits attest).

I know next to nothing about Ramirez, not having followed it all that closely. To be honest, this just doesn't rate very high on my priority list right now, largely because it is following a typical pattern of politicizing a he-said/she-said witht he two political sides lining up behind the parties that give them the most political advantage (the right to Kavanaugh, the left to Ford/Ramirez). I have little patience for such things.

Indeed - I've given it far more attention here than it merits. I'm going to go back to work. Last word to you.