‹ First  < 41 42 43
 
   
 

Kavanaughscopy

 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  3114
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
07 October 2018 07:38
 
Nhoj Morley - 06 October 2018 05:05 PM

This thread has been as much FUN to follow as a bus’s tailpipe.

BK gets his seat but only after devaluing all nine of them. But that would be true even if this assualt affair never happened. He was appointed by a man who does not understand the function of the court or the branches of government. He has to know why he was picked. Qualified is just handy.

When Yuval Harari (The Boss’s latest podcast guest) was on Amanpour, he suggest that humankind might be speciating. That is, breaking into two separate species. A bit tongue in cheek probably, but this thread supports the theory.

There is no basis for a criminal conviction that would take BK’s freedom away. There is no evidence that would convict. Comparing losing a nomination to losing one’s freedom is silly. The testimony tainted his reputation, which is not the same as a lawful conviction. We can all have our opinion about whether OJ did it, too, but we respect the process and there is no mob lynching. If you want to call this public outcry a lynching, that is very silly.

I know why women do not come forward. I know why there are often no police reports. I’ve seen why. Us lads have been raised in a society that indoctrinates us into stark, raving madness on the subject of women. Other things, too, but none that festers with more determination. Because we are not sorting this out within our institutaions, we can expect to it play out on cable news and SCOTUS hearings and hallways blocked by protesters.

Prof Ford did not walk into this with a torch. The room was already full of them. The folks that stock the senate commintee are silly people who do not know how to deal with this other then to pretend that this is the 1950’s.

There has been a lot of amplifying of points just to be more angry at them. Or worse, an obvious over-simplifying has fueled many of the crankier posts.

Celal may feel like a victor today but that should not distract from how contemptable his posting has been. Even for a trump supporter. As a poster, I’m all for it. I want him in plain sight where everyone can ogle.

I know of the BK and my objections are about the same as GAD’s, whose conspicuous freetime for posting is enviable. It has a kind of two stroke thing going of punching and walking back. Is it effective? Exactly!

A reputation can be publically trashed without any need for a criminal conviction. A loss of face is not a loss of freedom. I find Prof Ford testimony consistent with what would likely remain in her brain. I find that BK is unable to declare with certainty much of what he did in his drinking days. A cloak of righteousness was a bad wardrobe choice for a judge nominee.

Now, are we ready for the next thing?

Dear Mr Morley,  your post reminds me of another take away from this thread. 

The phrase “believe survivors” is an intelligence test. If they are proven survivors, you don’t need to “believe” them. If they are posing as “survivors,” they are exploiting real victims. “Believing” does not tell you which is which.

Only ASD and GAD passed this test. And it is essential you know this.

I’m done with this thread and with this forum. Good day

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6157
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
07 October 2018 09:19
 
Celal - 07 October 2018 07:38 AM

I’m done with this thread and with this forum. Good day

Don’t be a douche. If you haven’t notice as of yet, Nhoj is ahead of his time with regard to human behavior. Don’t do the good ole discharge dismount just because nobody agreed with you. I thought you did a phenomenal job however opposed I am to your dogma. smile

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6570
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
07 October 2018 09:28
 
Celal - 07 October 2018 07:38 AM

I’m done with this thread and with this forum. Good day

Buh-bye.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8059
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
09 October 2018 11:17
 

Remembering the Supreme Court’s worst decision:

quote from Laura Dassow Walls’ new biography - THOREAU - A Life:

“On March 6, 1857 . . . the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the infamous Dred Scott decision, declaring that under the Constitution, no black person, free or enslaved, was in fact a person, let alone a citizen, for slaves were property and therefore had no rights of personhood whatsoever.”

 
 
John V. Linton
 
Avatar
 
 
John V. Linton
Total Posts:  49
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
10 October 2018 13:03
 

I found Harris’s comments on the Kavanaugh matter preposterously PC and (one must assume) unintentionally stupid…

Regards that this is only a “job interview” and not a trial so the presumption of innocence needn’t apply, how about this rejoinder:  It will set a terrible precedent, effectively barring all future conservative jurists from the Court, to permit unsubstantiated allegations from derailing an exemplary jurist.

He’s also wrong and absurd on Kavanaugh having lied under oath.  It’s fascistic that mildly hyperbolic exculpatory comments about under-aged drinking or yearbook comments from 35+ years ago can be held against anyone’s integrity in any serious fashion.  Nobody can be expected to meet this level of biographical coherence about such minutiae, nor not, when confronted with a mob of journalists calling one a “gang rapist” as a fait accompli, make some slight exaggerations about how good one was.

Harris fails completely to understand the stratospheric pressure being brought by senatorial inquisitors and a slapdash press on a single human being—on how distorting a lens that might be—and on how hard it is to remember the exact provenance of every word uttered or written 35+ years ago.

Nor does Harris remotely (at least here) apply the same scruple to far more substantive irregularities in the accuser’s testimony.  (One small but far more glaring example than anything Harris dotes on about Kavanaugh:  Ford’s apparent lie that she cannot bear flying due to her trauma.)

Alan Dershowitz is far more accurate (being a lawyer) that this was far more than a “job interview”—it was a “trial” in the sense that the claims about whether K was a gang rapist (and whether he would be permitted to continue his work even as a district judge) were being adjudicated before the world.  Try putting Harris on the stand for decades-old accusations of rape, sans any evidence, and see what his demeanor would look like.  (To be fair, Harris might well be preternaturally calm under such circumstances, but Harris cannot possibly project his own nigh-sociopathic calm on other human beings.)

Harris mentions Ford citing Mark Judge as a sign of her courage but not that Mark Judge REFUTED her.  This encapsulates the anti-logic of Harris’s larger argument.  (Nor does he touch on the 3 others who contradict her testimony).

Harris also begs the question that Kavanaugh was someone Ford ~“already knew”.  This has not been established to any degree of objective certainty.  K has testified he may have met her, but is not even sure of that.  So Harris is taking a Ford assertion as a basis for his reasoning…  Very problematic.

To Harris’s point that she would not put up with all this, on making a public assertion, neglects that it is not clear she intended to go public.  Further, other women (Ramirez and the gang-rape accuser) came forward but clearly have not been shown to have been substantiated.  Their behavior suggests people may come forward under false auspices.

Nor would K want the FBI to issue an umpteenth investigation into whether he himself was lying.  What human being would say, “I welcome the FBI looking into whether I’m lying!”—when they: a) stand accused of gang rape; b) no new evidence could possibly come to light; c) the extended time period would produce a window for more Democratic operatives to raise charges of gang rape, serial killing, who knows… and d) a negative (his innocence) can never be proved?  What conceivable evidence could be adduced 36 years after the fact?  It insults the very intelligence to play along with an obvious delaying tactic—while the selfsame Democrats conducting this inquisition might produce another dozen gang-rape accusations, just as easily evidence free.  (Should then there be a new FBI investigation, in Harris’s view, every time a new gang-rape allegation lacking any evidence or corroboration is made?)

What laws of physics does Sam think can be suspended such that any conceivable FBI probe could shed the slightest light on allegations over 35 years old of such a transient (i.e. sans physical evidence) nature?  One could utterly detest rape and also understand that even if one had a time machine, one would still not know the exact time and place, per Ford’s testimony, to show up.  It beggars the mind that Sam has sold out this badly…

One could scarcely produce a more thinly-sourced accusation that tests the thesis on whether an accuser’s word is wholly sufficient to indict a good man.?

[ Edited: 10 October 2018 13:54 by John V. Linton]
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15216
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
10 October 2018 14:19
 
John V. Linton - 10 October 2018 01:03 PM

I found Harris’s comments on the Kavanaugh matter preposterously PC and (one must assume) unintentionally stupid…

Regards that this is only a “job interview” and not a trial so the presumption of innocence needn’t apply, how about this rejoinder:  It will set a terrible precedent, effectively barring all future conservative jurists from the Court, to permit unsubstantiated allegations from derailing an exemplary jurist.

He’s also wrong and absurd on Kavanaugh having lied under oath.  It’s fascistic that mildly hyperbolic exculpatory comments about under-aged drinking or yearbook comments from 35+ years ago can be held against anyone’s integrity in any serious fashion.  Nobody can be expected to meet this level of biographical coherence about such minutiae, nor not, when confronted with a mob of journalists calling one a “gang rapist” as a fait accompli, make some slight exaggerations about how good one was.

Harris fails completely to understand the stratospheric pressure being brought by senatorial inquisitors and a slapdash press on a single human being—on how distorting a lens that might be—and on how hard it is to remember the exact provenance of every word uttered or written 35+ years ago.

Nor does Harris remotely (at least here) apply the same scruple to far more substantive irregularities in the accuser’s testimony.  (One small but far more glaring example than anything Harris dotes on about Kavanaugh:  Ford’s apparent lie that she cannot bear flying due to her trauma.)

Alan Dershowitz is far more accurate (being a lawyer) that this was far more than a “job interview”—it was a “trial” in the sense that the claims about whether K was a gang rapist (and whether he would be permitted to continue his work even as a district judge) were being adjudicated before the world.  Try putting Harris on the stand for decades-old accusations of rape, sans any evidence, and see what his demeanor would look like.  (To be fair, Harris might well be preternaturally calm under such circumstances, but Harris cannot possibly project his own nigh-sociopathic calm on other human beings.)

Harris mentions Ford citing Mark Judge as a sign of her courage but not that Mark Judge REFUTED her.  This encapsulates the anti-logic of Harris’s larger argument.  (Nor does he touch on the 3 others who contradict her testimony).

Harris also begs the question that Kavanaugh was someone Ford ~“already knew”.  This has not been established to any degree of objective certainty.  K has testified he may have met her, but is not even sure of that.  So Harris is taking a Ford assertion as a basis for his reasoning…  Very problematic.

To Harris’s point that she would not put up with all this, on making a public assertion, neglects that it is not clear she intended to go public.  Further, other women (Ramirez and the gang-rape accuser) came forward but clearly have not been shown to have been substantiated.  Their behavior suggests people may come forward under false auspices.

Nor would K want the FBI to issue an umpteenth investigation into whether he himself was lying.  What human being would say, “I welcome the FBI looking into whether I’m lying!”—when they: a) stand accused of gang rape; b) no new evidence could possibly come to light; c) the extended time period would produce a window for more Democratic operatives to raise charges of gang rape, serial killing, who knows… and d) a negative (his innocence) can never be proved?  What conceivable evidence could be adduced 36 years after the fact?  It insults the very intelligence to play along with an obvious delaying tactic—while the selfsame Democrats conducting this inquisition might produce another dozen gang-rape accusations, just as easily evidence free.  (Should then there be a new FBI investigation, in Harris’s view, every time a new gang-rape allegation lacking any evidence or corroboration is made?)

What laws of physics does Sam think can be suspended such that any conceivable FBI probe could shed the slightest light on allegations over 35 years old of such a transient (i.e. sans physical evidence) nature?  One could utterly detest rape and also understand that even if one had a time machine, one would still not know the exact time and place, per Ford’s testimony, to show up.  It beggars the mind that Sam has sold out this badly…

One could scarcely produce a more thinly-sourced accusation that tests the thesis on whether an accuser’s word is wholly sufficient to indict a good man.?

Well, that’s a weasely sort of attempted justification. Actually, I don’t think that it’s disqualifying if he did it, if he had responded in a more temperate way. But he’s obviously a partisan hack that, to my view, is disqualifying. But it’s a fait accompli now. Pure Republican power play.

 
John V. Linton
 
Avatar
 
 
John V. Linton
Total Posts:  49
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
10 October 2018 14:38
 
burt - 10 October 2018 02:19 PM

Well, that’s a weasely sort of attempted justification. Actually, I don’t think that it’s disqualifying if he did it, if he had responded in a more temperate way. But he’s obviously a partisan hack that, to my view, is disqualifying. But it’s a fait accompli now. Pure Republican power play.

I fail to see how anything I say was remotely weasely.  We are talking angels on the head of a pin in outside subjective intelligences gauging the extent of Kavanaugh’s drinking problem—nor would that convict him of the unrelated question at hand, try as NPR might with its article on alcohol amnesia.  [Arguing that the laws of physics do not prevent a crime from having happened is not the strongest case.]

Here’s the point, regarding his temperament.  Try this thought experiment (which I take from Jonah Goldberg):  Walk into any courtroom in America and, if there’s a male judge presiding, accuse him of gang rape and then watch what a true “judicial temperament” looks like.  Or levy a similarly weighty charge against a female judge.

This is an inhuman, impossible standard.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15216
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
10 October 2018 16:40
 
John V. Linton - 10 October 2018 02:38 PM
burt - 10 October 2018 02:19 PM

Well, that’s a weasely sort of attempted justification. Actually, I don’t think that it’s disqualifying if he did it, if he had responded in a more temperate way. But he’s obviously a partisan hack that, to my view, is disqualifying. But it’s a fait accompli now. Pure Republican power play.

I fail to see how anything I say was remotely weasely.  We are talking angels on the head of a pin in outside subjective intelligences gauging the extent of Kavanaugh’s drinking problem—nor would that convict him of the unrelated question at hand, try as NPR might with its article on alcohol amnesia.  [Arguing that the laws of physics do not prevent a crime from having happened is not the strongest case.]

Here’s the point, regarding his temperament.  Try this thought experiment (which I take from Jonah Goldberg):  Walk into any courtroom in America and, if there’s a male judge presiding, accuse him of gang rape and then watch what a true “judicial temperament” looks like.  Or levy a similarly weighty charge against a female judge.

This is an inhuman, impossible standard.

Wrong analogy. Good try though. Anyway, it’s done with and we’ll see if he is the tipping point for Roe v Wade.

 
John V. Linton
 
Avatar
 
 
John V. Linton
Total Posts:  49
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
10 October 2018 17:03
 

“Wrong analogy. Good try though. Anyway, it’s done with and we’ll see if he is the tipping point for Roe v Wade.”

I’d say with Roberts, who trembled before the individual mandate, passed only a fear years before, transmuting a penalty into a tax (or was it the opposite?; I can never recall…), there will be no overturning of Roe.

For that matter I rather doubt K would be an easy vote for it.

However a sixth conservative justice…

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17005
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
10 October 2018 17:03
 
John V. Linton - 10 October 2018 02:38 PM
burt - 10 October 2018 02:19 PM

Well, that’s a weasely sort of attempted justification. Actually, I don’t think that it’s disqualifying if he did it, if he had responded in a more temperate way. But he’s obviously a partisan hack that, to my view, is disqualifying. But it’s a fait accompli now. Pure Republican power play.

I fail to see how anything I say was remotely weasely.  We are talking angels on the head of a pin in outside subjective intelligences gauging the extent of Kavanaugh’s drinking problem—nor would that convict him of the unrelated question at hand, try as NPR might with its article on alcohol amnesia.  [Arguing that the laws of physics do not prevent a crime from having happened is not the strongest case.]

Here’s the point, regarding his temperament.  Try this thought experiment (which I take from Jonah Goldberg):  Walk into any courtroom in America and, if there’s a male judge presiding, accuse him of gang rape and then watch what a true “judicial temperament” looks like.  Or levy a similarly weighty charge against a female judge.

This is an inhuman, impossible standard.

You are 43 pages late on this debate. Most of the poster here not only decided he was guilty before hearing a single word of testimony, they argued desperately that a woman’s (men are excluded) accusations without evidence should be accepted as proof (especially if she was really emotional (men are excluded)) and were very excited for a world where that might become the standard.

 
 
John V. Linton
 
Avatar
 
 
John V. Linton
Total Posts:  49
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
10 October 2018 17:26
 

“You are 43 pages late on this debate. Most of the poster here not only decided he was guilty before hearing a single word of testimony, they argued desperately that a woman’s (men are excluded) accusations without evidence should be accepted as proof (especially if she was really emotional (men are excluded)) and were very excited for a world where that might become the standard.”

Well Sir, we’ll do our best to reverse that.

Leaving aside the (eternal) matter of Roe, upon which I would compromise (admonishing the pro-life movement to continue to gain traction on the cultural front and not push for quick Roe-like reversals)—I am quite happy to have a conservative jurist added to the Court at this very daunting moment, when Title IX kangaroo courts dot the landscape, when the very Sixth Amendment and First Amendment appear imperiled by the liberal hordes.

Yes Sir, despite whatever alcoholic failings Justice Kavanaugh brings, he is a bright light for our Constitution against the new medievalism.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  20857
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
10 October 2018 18:01
 

BK has hired 4 female clerks.  I was a law clerk to a federal judge once ( and met Justice Breyer before he was on SCOTUS), and they often surprise you on the court.  Now that he is on the court, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt until I see what he actually does.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15216
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
10 October 2018 18:09
 
GAD - 10 October 2018 05:03 PM
John V. Linton - 10 October 2018 02:38 PM
burt - 10 October 2018 02:19 PM

Well, that’s a weasely sort of attempted justification. Actually, I don’t think that it’s disqualifying if he did it, if he had responded in a more temperate way. But he’s obviously a partisan hack that, to my view, is disqualifying. But it’s a fait accompli now. Pure Republican power play.

I fail to see how anything I say was remotely weasely.  We are talking angels on the head of a pin in outside subjective intelligences gauging the extent of Kavanaugh’s drinking problem—nor would that convict him of the unrelated question at hand, try as NPR might with its article on alcohol amnesia.  [Arguing that the laws of physics do not prevent a crime from having happened is not the strongest case.]

Here’s the point, regarding his temperament.  Try this thought experiment (which I take from Jonah Goldberg):  Walk into any courtroom in America and, if there’s a male judge presiding, accuse him of gang rape and then watch what a true “judicial temperament” looks like.  Or levy a similarly weighty charge against a female judge.

This is an inhuman, impossible standard.

You are 43 pages late on this debate. Most of the poster here not only decided he was guilty before hearing a single word of testimony, they argued desperately that a woman’s (men are excluded) accusations without evidence should be accepted as proof (especially if she was really emotional (men are excluded)) and were very excited for a world where that might become the standard.

Late, and obvious gloating. But you’re mistaken about others assumptions. Watching the actual participants testimony, I believed her. Personally, I didn’t (and don’t) think that that, of itself was disqualifying. If it were, lots of guys would be disqualified. But Kavanaugh’s performance was for me a disqualifier although I don’t particularly like his judicial philosophy. So it’s not a matter of whatever the woman says is right and the accused is guilty. Rather, it’s I believe this particular person, but that of itself is not a disqualification. Were i sitting on a jury in a court room I’d have to vote not guilty for lack of corroborating evidence.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17005
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
10 October 2018 18:28
 
John V. Linton - 10 October 2018 05:26 PM

“You are 43 pages late on this debate. Most of the poster here not only decided he was guilty before hearing a single word of testimony, they argued desperately that a woman’s (men are excluded) accusations without evidence should be accepted as proof (especially if she was really emotional (men are excluded)) and were very excited for a world where that might become the standard.”

Well Sir, we’ll do our best to reverse that.

Leaving aside the (eternal) matter of Roe, upon which I would compromise (admonishing the pro-life movement to continue to gain traction on the cultural front and not push for quick Roe-like reversals)—I am quite happy to have a conservative jurist added to the Court at this very daunting moment, when Title IX kangaroo courts dot the landscape, when the very Sixth Amendment and First Amendment appear imperiled by the liberal hordes.

Yes Sir, despite whatever alcoholic failings Justice Kavanaugh brings, he is a bright light for our Constitution against the new medievalism.

That just means you hate women and support them being raped.

On being bright light for our Constitution, if he puts religion above secular law or women’s rights then he hate hates America and supports it being raped.

 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  24
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
10 October 2018 19:31
 
John V. Linton - 10 October 2018 01:03 PM

I found Harris’s comments on the Kavanaugh matter preposterously PC and (one must assume) unintentionally stupid…

Regards that this is only a “job interview” and not a trial so the presumption of innocence needn’t apply, how about this rejoinder:  It will set a terrible precedent, effectively barring all future conservative jurists from the Court, to permit unsubstantiated allegations from derailing an exemplary jurist.

He’s also wrong and absurd on Kavanaugh having lied under oath.  It’s fascistic that mildly hyperbolic exculpatory comments about under-aged drinking or yearbook comments from 35+ years ago can be held against anyone’s integrity in any serious fashion.  Nobody can be expected to meet this level of biographical coherence about such minutiae, nor not, when confronted with a mob of journalists calling one a “gang rapist” as a fait accompli, make some slight exaggerations about how good one was.

Harris fails completely to understand the stratospheric pressure being brought by senatorial inquisitors and a slapdash press on a single human being—on how distorting a lens that might be—and on how hard it is to remember the exact provenance of every word uttered or written 35+ years ago.

Nor does Harris remotely (at least here) apply the same scruple to far more substantive irregularities in the accuser’s testimony.  (One small but far more glaring example than anything Harris dotes on about Kavanaugh:  Ford’s apparent lie that she cannot bear flying due to her trauma.)

Alan Dershowitz is far more accurate (being a lawyer) that this was far more than a “job interview”—it was a “trial” in the sense that the claims about whether K was a gang rapist (and whether he would be permitted to continue his work even as a district judge) were being adjudicated before the world.  Try putting Harris on the stand for decades-old accusations of rape, sans any evidence, and see what his demeanor would look like.  (To be fair, Harris might well be preternaturally calm under such circumstances, but Harris cannot possibly project his own nigh-sociopathic calm on other human beings.)

Harris mentions Ford citing Mark Judge as a sign of her courage but not that Mark Judge REFUTED her.  This encapsulates the anti-logic of Harris’s larger argument.  (Nor does he touch on the 3 others who contradict her testimony).

Harris also begs the question that Kavanaugh was someone Ford ~“already knew”.  This has not been established to any degree of objective certainty.  K has testified he may have met her, but is not even sure of that.  So Harris is taking a Ford assertion as a basis for his reasoning…  Very problematic.

To Harris’s point that she would not put up with all this, on making a public assertion, neglects that it is not clear she intended to go public.  Further, other women (Ramirez and the gang-rape accuser) came forward but clearly have not been shown to have been substantiated.  Their behavior suggests people may come forward under false auspices.

Nor would K want the FBI to issue an umpteenth investigation into whether he himself was lying.  What human being would say, “I welcome the FBI looking into whether I’m lying!”—when they: a) stand accused of gang rape; b) no new evidence could possibly come to light; c) the extended time period would produce a window for more Democratic operatives to raise charges of gang rape, serial killing, who knows… and d) a negative (his innocence) can never be proved?  What conceivable evidence could be adduced 36 years after the fact?  It insults the very intelligence to play along with an obvious delaying tactic—while the selfsame Democrats conducting this inquisition might produce another dozen gang-rape accusations, just as easily evidence free.  (Should then there be a new FBI investigation, in Harris’s view, every time a new gang-rape allegation lacking any evidence or corroboration is made?)

What laws of physics does Sam think can be suspended such that any conceivable FBI probe could shed the slightest light on allegations over 35 years old of such a transient (i.e. sans physical evidence) nature?  One could utterly detest rape and also understand that even if one had a time machine, one would still not know the exact time and place, per Ford’s testimony, to show up.  It beggars the mind that Sam has sold out this badly…

One could scarcely produce a more thinly-sourced accusation that tests the thesis on whether an accuser’s word is wholly sufficient to indict a good man.?


Good post - when Sam mentions where people are getting confused on this issue he pretty much summed up what I was thinking (as in I’m confused).  Maybe I am, but thanks for your thoughts - at least I’m not the only one.
I also thought Sams statements about another FBI investigation didn’t make sense in this setting.  Kavanagh is supposed to welcome a delay?  His actions would also align with someone who has done nothing wrong - or at least knows the investigation will show nothing that wasn’t unearthed by that time.  Even if something happened, it makes no difference.  There is no proof, no corroboration. So they investigate and some other claims roll in (akin to the gang rape allegations).  Now we must investigate again!  Brass tacks is that even if you believe most of Fords story, it’s just too late to do anything about it.  And like I said before, who gives a shit about high school boof comments?  Ridiculous

 
‹ First  < 41 42 43