Meanwhile, an essentially trivial detail of the timeline here, overlooked possibly because everybody already knows what this situation is: the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee clearly knew who Ford was at least a few days - and more likely weeks - before Feinstein produced the letter and information. So they had the name from Kavanaugh, probably, or at a minimum had discussed the name with Kavanaugh. And Kavanaugh's public responses, exactly in keeping with his public statements since his nomination, have been right down the line of Trump's well known ->and explicitly commanded of minions<- strategy of never admitting and always denying wrong or error - even at the price of self-contradiction or absurdity. As in his nomination acceptance speech, his hearing responses, and his Fox News interview the other night (the only recent Supreme Court nominee, of dozens, to have consented to such thing while in confirmation), he produced politician's rhetoric in the exact manner of Trump himself and all his representatives, apparently written by the same media pros as the ones advising the White House. A guy being nominated to the Supreme Court after a lifetime of delivering legal and judicial opinions supposedly his own, a lifetime supposedly dealing with complex arguments and big words and significant issues while both writing and speaking in public, is producing the sound bites and message repetitions and crude flatteries and absurd denials of a standard Republican Congressman angling for Big Guy backing. He's mouthing words written for him by others, words trained into him by role play coaching and stage set practice, words no longer meaningful or grounded in physical reality at all. He's a sycophant. An ass kisser. A climber. An ambitious and entitled toady, selling his loyalty for advancement. And we all know what such men are like, when given power themselves after a lifetime of accumulated resentments. A sample of what that character looks like during their career, as the power whose ass they kiss changes shape: https://slate.com/news-and-politics...esident-committed-an-impeachable-offense.html
One of the minor details that illuminate Kavanaugh's character as a judge: https://www.dcreport.org/2018/09/10/kavanaughs-lies-about-seaworld-annotated/
All these accusations against Kavanaugh should only make him more popular with his base. Some people specifically want their representatives to be dumb folksy horny idiots with no logic skills, because they have fantasies of one day becoming Dukes and Barons themselves, and they need inspiring examples to look up to.
Trump has reached the phase he regularly reaches - "all those women are LYING!" It is telling that he so often has to resort to that argument.
Nobody replied to post #115 as above Looked for it myself found this Comments please https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-09...ne-feinstein-revealed-to-be-a-total-fake.html https://www.real.video/5840008773001 About 14 minutes video Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Probably. At this point he could be convicted of molesting a small child and republicans wouldn't care. (Heck, that would probably increase his support with them.)
Video is the medium of wingnut garbage. As for your text link: 1) Where's the FBI investigation? An FBI investigation would be the obvious, simple, routine, common, and straightforward way to clear up questions of legitimacy in such matters as these. The only people blocking an FBI investigation are Kavanaugh's supporters. 2) Any educated person can blow that 14 point pile of crap out of the water in five minutes plus typing. Even somebody like me can do it. Why are you falling for such obvious bs? How? You need to be shown? Here (the numbers from the link) : For starters, from jump, this absurdity: none of his "analysis" includes a comparison of the letter with verified samples of Ford's normal writing. I mean, dude - c'mon. We're done already. This isn't serious, is it? Intro: None of the 14 points are "inconsistencies". The claim that they are is presented without argument or evidence barring a few false assertions (see below) He's wrong about every indication he mentions. For example: 1) This is an error. A Ph.D. would correctly state the letter offers information relevant to evaluating the nominee, not “in” evaluating. In fact, a truly intelligent person would write, “I am writing with information relevant to the evaluation of the current nominee…” No. Many people with Doctorates write poorly. Many people with Doctorates are not, in fact, "truly intelligent" in the sense being able to write well. An experienced editor can hardly avoid learning that, which brings our analyst's honesty into question. And not to overdo the snark, but I would expect a truly intelligent, professional, technical editor to correct "A Ph.D. would - " , and " - correctly state the letter offers - ", both of which display awkward infelicities not welcome in formal prose. Two in one sentence. 2) The font size of the first line of the second paragraph, where Brett Kavanaugh’s name is first mentioned, is oddly 140% the size of all the other lines in the document. Nothing odd about it. The main and striking point of the letter is emphasized, right at the start - no explanation required. 3) This use of the apostrophe in the “1980’s” is a very common error made by people who possess poor writing skills, It's a very common error made by lots of well-educated people, including those with Doctorates. And I do not believe our self-described professional editor here has not encountered that circumstance, repeatedly. Again, the question of honesty arises. 4) Also in the same phrase, “…sexually assaulted me during High School in the early 1980’s,” the writer inexplicably capitalizes “High School.” This is another obvious, “newbie” error in writing that might typically be made by a very inexperienced or low-education individual. Or by anyone who writes seldom and poorly. Or by someone who has edited their letter awkwardly, perhaps following some political aide's recommendation that it not name the high school, become shorter via excision, etc. (There's possibly an entire missing phrase there, indicated by "during", unless that was simply a mistake the professional editor here did not catch. ) But then, our professional technical writer and bigtime editor typed this borderline illiteracy immediately afterwards: "The proper time to capitalize such a phrase would occur if the full name of the high school in question were included". So maybe he is not bringing his A game here. Of course we all have our off days - including, maybe, Ph.D.s writing on laptops while under high stress? Ford can be forgiven some symptoms of stress. Not this guy - this next is the last. I lost patience with this asshat: 5) The second sentence in the second paragraph states, “Both were 1-2 years older than me and students at a local private school.” This is a grammatical error that’s typical of low-skilled writers. A more skilled writer would have written something closer to, “Both were 1-2 years older than myself and other students at a local private school.” The sentence is still awkward, but improved The only apparent error(s) in {Ford's} sentence is her use of "me" for "I" and possibly the omitted comma immediately after the I. These are only small obstacles to comprehension - she has communicated her meaning, or at least a meaning. His rewrite, on the other hand, butchers her apparent meaning and badly obscures his own, introducing greater barriers to comprehension via even worse omissions of punctuation and far more awkward construction than the original. In one sentence. That, from the pinnacle of 30 years of professional writing and editing? For chrissake - this guy can't read. Which brings us, since I'm fed up with paying attention to these idiotic details, to the confusion of the overall argument: Apparently, Ford's education precludes her being as poor a prose stylist as the author(s) of this letter show(s) themselves to be. So the letter is a "fake". But Ford is a real person, by all accounts. And somebody wrote this letter - there it is. And Ford has not denied writing it, or disavowed any of its content, to date. So exactly who is supposed to have written the thing, according to these accusers? Are they claiming Ford did not know about the letter? That Feinstein hired it written, and chose an uneducated flunky with poor writing skills to do it, while the more capable and better educated Ford sat around and waited for the shit to hit the fan over a letter attributed to her? The hell with this guy, and everybody on his team of manure spreaders. I don't know for sure whether Ford's letter as posted there is legitimate, but I do know that this kind of "analysis" is not. Not even close.
Is this fuckwit competing with Ed Whelan (of the google maps/Zillow floor plans doppleganger "theory")? Why on earth would you even link to this?
You can never know whether the authors of these wacky theories actually believe what they're saying, or if they're simply disseminating propaganda with the full knowledge that it's utter bullshit, but... Well, obviously, plenty of people do subscribe to the notion that educated people ought to be incapable of making such (supposed) errors. Just... how? Have they truly never encountered a person who really ought to know better? I mean, I once had a neurologist tell me that there is no such thing as an epileptic seizure that does not involve full loss of consciousness. This would place his knowledge of neurology prior to Hughlings Jackson, which would have made him more than a hundred years old--he was old, but he wasn't that old. I encounter this kind of incompetence almost daily. I think most people do, right?
FBI do background checks and one was done with the results handed to the committee Nothing found The FBI were asked. The FBI declined. Give the investigation to the local law inforcement Not going to watch video again but I am sure I heard in there the style was compared with her published papers Well her lawyers have given her a escape route. She would be questioned by a female lawyer not the committee so not what she wants so she might well be a no show Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
They did not check the provenance of this letter, which was your concern if you recall. They have been blocked from checking it, by the White House. That's not true. It was not, in your text link. Read for yourself - no comparison was made. That dumbass actually tried to make a case that the letter was not Ford's style, without comparing it to anything else Ford ever wrote. If it had been, the worthlessness of comparing such specialized and carefully edited and co-authored stuff with a letter like that would have been immediately obvious, of course. Maybe that's why it wasn't. What somebody thinks they heard in a video is part of the problem with videos - transcript or forget it, in a serious discussion. For the Republicans on the committee, you mean - the Democrats are on record as not requiring such protections from their own words and faces. (It's getting harder and harder to find a Republican who doesn't need to speak through a hired lawyer these days - now they can't even read their own Committee questions?) And so what if she doesn't show? She already agreed to testify without an FBI report to support her, or any way of establishing physical fact, or any witnesses to back her up, just he said she said as the Republicans mandated - which is obviously a large risk when faced with this lying shitpile of powerful Republican Senators. That's enough hazard for one life. Check out the background of the ass-covering mouth they hired, btw - last seen running media interference for Sheriff Joe Arpaio in his refusal to investigate sexual assaults of brownskin women on the border of Arizona. As a taxpayer, I'm being charged a hell of a lot of money for this skeezy lawyer to do the job of the Judiciary Committee Republicans. I think her fees should come out of their pockets, not mine.
My ORIGINAL quest was to see what the was alleged with the original letter. Not its provenance. That only arose with the release of what was SAID the be THE letter but MIGHT be a retyped (I don't know if it is or not BUT yes the FBI could investigate if the letter (if it is a federal crime) has been retyped incorrectly Again in the video was there not read out a section of her published work? Anyway this thread will soon be moot or argumentative after the event If if if she appears one of the questions sure to be asked is "Did you write this letter in this form (ie are these your exact words)" Prediction - at least the hearing will spawn at least 6 books Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So? What's your point? I don't know. I read and discussed your text link, which contained no such thing. No, it won't. The main point here is the demonstration of the nature of the Republican Congress and the Republican Party. That will be a central focus of discussion until the struggle against them is won or lost. So? Are you looking forward to Senate confirmation of this pos to the Supreme Court on the basis of grammatical errors in the statements of his sex crime victims and eyewitnesses? You can find excellent grammar and high level writing skills in the accounts of his signing off on W's torture prisons and programs, in the decisions of the Federal courts he dissented from for bad reasons, in the historical and journalistic accounts of the slander and lie operation he managed as Ken Starr's "point man", in the research reports on the odd gaps and red flags in his financial records, and so forth. This Republican Congress will spawn more than that, we hope - it will unless the bad guys win. The general topic will be "Fascism in the United States, the Reagan Era: 1980 - 2030". The hope is that Gore Vidal's old prediction - and he has had an excellent track record both before and after death - will not prove out: that this entire show is going to be repressed events in Chinese history books.
The ORIGINAL letter should be the main evidence Copies may be allowed if, only if, they EXACTLY match the original Sure if the ORIGINAL has bad grammar, spelling mistakes, punctuation mistakes THEY NEED TO BE COPIED If someone is asked to reproduce a copy (or copies for numerous persons) every single copy must be exact If the person, because they have better language skills decides "oh I'll correct that spelling mistake, tidy up the puntuation, oh and XYZ is a better word than ABC" No no no When I write notes on patients in the hospital you are not allowed to cross out mistakes to the point of unintelligible. Cross out OK, light line through so still readable and initialed When I was making notes on people I treated as a industrial nurse, power station construction, floating oil rigs, railway line construction, I used a card system but as my handwriting can be hard for others to read I did make typed copies for those people And do you have a prediction of who will get the chequered flag ending 4 yearly elections? Noooooo More if she is given her original letter her answer would be yes a corrected copy should get a yes but not exactly like that a doctored copy would be no because I never said that and the part changed makes it worse (normally doctoring is to make worse) but changes can be made to completely change meanings Yes when Walt Disney is reanimated I hope he knows some Arabic Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Evidence of what? What are you even talking about? Nope. But if it's the current Republican movement, I will know who to blame. So ask her. Or better yet have the FBI ask her, in the course of a routine investigation. That's the normal, standard procedure. So is getting straight answers on financial problems, torture advocacy, extremely partisan commitments and media manipulations of the past, and apparent instances of perjury, before making a lifetime appointment to a seat on the Supreme Court. The whole W/Saudi Texas/Arabia Republican Holy Oil Alliance is going to be taken down by the Chinese, if climate change doesn't kill it first.
The evidence of what information she gave to Feinstein Which they probably will If the questioner is smart they will not ask any questions to which they do not know the answer If the person being questioned was smart when the letter was written they would have put markers on the letter and taken a time stamped photo as well as a photocopy Any letter given to her could be verified against her copies Been there done that from personal experience Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
? What for? She is not accused of the crime of giving or not giving information to Feinstein. Feinstein is not accused of the crime of receiving or not receiving information from Ford. If anyone wants to know exactly what information Ford gave Feinstein, and exactly when, and in exactly what words, for some reason nobody seems to be able to explain, they can just ask. Or, if they really really really care, and they are the current White House residents, they can have the FBI investigate as the FBI has agreed to do - it's the function of the FBI. They are supposed to have done that already. Meanwhile: What are you actually talking about? Because everyone knows this hearing is not actually an honest inquiry into Kavanaugh's character and past behaviors. And if they weren't smart, then what? Vote to put a torture supporter, slandermongering partisan hack, financially irresponsible guy with mysterious sources of money, and multiply demonstrated perjurer, on the Supreme Court, because one of the half dozen people who have placed him at scenes of sexual assault didn't thoroughly document that time she wrote a letter about it?
Ummmm I can think of a number of reasons why I (the letter writer) would want to protect myself I can think of a number of reasons why I as a questioner would want to know the answer the letter writer SHOULD give BEFORE I ask And ditto of my first paragraph to the third section of your post Over arching the whole circus it seems she has found her way into the lions den without a chair or whip to defend herself Yes I know she is not on trial (ha ha cute idea) Go back to the so called beginning I (the letter writer - A) have information about X I send a letter to Y requesting I remain anonymous Well that is blown already because Y knows who you are So Y respects your request - no release of letter - wait a minute didn't A send same info to a newspaper? Moving on Y respects your request and does NOTHING Not even send letter to police FBI or any other authority So where does, the now circus, go No clowns, no animals, no tent Yes the time honoured way to get something critical done is to provide vague information and request to remain anonymous while putting your name on it Give specific information about - B will arrive on T with a lot of contraband - to relevant authorities anonymously and let them make a assessment and act as they deem appropriate Anonymous - hint don't put name or leave a electronic trail or finger prints Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why is this a lion's den? This is supposed to be a confirmation hearing. Everybody takes their time, checks stuff out, considers the person and the situation. No lion's den required. Whatever you are trying to say is not visible. What are you trying to say? Does it have anything to do with Kavanaugh's fitness for the Supreme Court?
