(10-01-2019 04:22 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 03:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Even the lady's friends did not support her claim - unless you count her friends in the Senate. Meanwhile, we had 30 years of no complaints on Kavanaugh. I don't think Ford was lying - I think she is confused and may have an embedded delusion. She was inconsistent and vague. But you are the lawyer - did you see evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt?

Lord help me if I ever have to defend all the things I did as a Rice student. I would be in prison for ten lifetimes. And yes, beer played an important part. But the 50 years since then have been much different. I would rather be judged on my actions as an adult than my actions as a kid.

I was talking less about Christine Blasey Ford's allegations about Kavanaugh in high school and more about: (1) Deborah Ramirez's allegation that Kavanaugh drunkenly thrust his bare genitals at her during a party at Yale; and (2) Kavanaugh's obviously misleading testimony about how hard he partied in high school and college.

It would have been very easy for Kavanaugh to say that he drank and partied a boat load during that time of his life and still denied all the allegations. It would have been easy for him to explain that he quickly matured and hasn't been that immature young man for 30+ years. Instead, he repeatedly minimized his drinking and gave bizarre explanations for slang terms in his yearbook.

I'm scared to ask what you did when you were a Rice student. I drank and partied plenty of times. I never thrust my naked genitals at anyone (without consent) and certainly never in front of a group of people. There is only one thing that truly embarrasses me to admit. I drove drunk once, thank God no one was hurt and that I didn't get pulled over. My flimsy defense at the time that I was following a friend who was completely sober but that doesn't excuse my dangerous and reckless decision. Other than that, I liked beer and many other liquors, I smoked pot once, and tried to never be an a$$hole to anyone.

(10-01-2019 08:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I thought I made it abundantly clear that the issue isn't Trump pushing for a country to investigate corruption. It's that Trump inserted himself into a situation involving his main political opponent.

When you have a sensitive subject, you need to act sensitively.

Trump getting a pass on using his position to request the investigation of a political opponent means that there is no issue with him using his power to ask anyone else to investigate any of his opponents. All he has to say is "I think something is wrong" and boom, off to another investigation and abuse of power.

The line about "with great power comes great responsibility" is perfect for this situation.

Quote:I am glad that in your last sentence you recognize that the ouster of the Ukrainian prosecutor that the Obama administration meant that it was more likely that Hunter's company would be investigated for real. Which means that Joe was almost certainly not trying to cover up for his son, as is being alleged and at the center of Trump's request.

(10-01-2019 03:52 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  IANAL. I just don't understand why Trump would direct a foreign leader to deal with his personal lawyer when conducting super normal POTUS business.

Quote:Do you truly believe Trump is interested in fighting the political corruption of anyone besides those he perceives as his enemies? If I thought he was operating in good faith, I might not suggest they work on more important things.

(10-01-2019 06:19 PM)mrbig Wrote:  You seem to miss my entire point about Kavanaugh. The problem isn't that he (allegedly) drunkenly dropped trou/trow during a party and thrust his ***** at a young woman on at least 1 occasion. The problem is that he seems to have lied about it later and tried to mislead/minimize surrounding facts (such as drinking to the point that he might not remember events). No one should lie under oath, our entire system is built on the idea that one tells the truth and the whole truth when under oath. Having a nominee to the Supreme Court (and sitting federal circuit court judge) even toe the line of perjury blew my mind.

And Deborah Ramirez didn't testify and most of her corroborating witnesses were not even interviewed by the FBI. So that's a separate problem.

And I'm not trying to hold Kavanaugh's past behavior against him in any meaningful sense. I could easily be convinced that any screwups from ages 16-22 do not reflect on the kind of person he is now. But only when someone is up front and honest about things.

Also, hiring an ex-con as a landscaper or roofer or doctor or lawyer is a little different than putting someone on the supreme court for life. Really weak argument.

(10-01-2019 06:19 PM)mrbig Wrote:  You seem to miss my entire point about Kavanaugh. The problem isn't that he (allegedly) drunkenly dropped trou/trow during a party and thrust his ***** at a young woman on at least 1 occasion. The problem is that he seems to have lied about it later and tried to mislead/minimize surrounding facts (such as drinking to the point that he might not remember events).

(10-01-2019 08:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As you said, it is he said/she said. You have chosen to (a) believe her, and (b) assume he is lying. I choose the opposite. I just don't think you should predicate your position on choices that could go either way.

Sounds like your choice is to hold youthful indiscretions against them for life, even ones not proven. MY thought is that let's judge not on what they did at 19 or 23, but the last thirty years.

(10-01-2019 08:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But if it didn’t happen, then he didn’t lie about it.

(10-01-2019 06:19 PM)mrbig Wrote:  You seem to miss my entire point about Kavanaugh. The problem isn't that he (allegedly) drunkenly dropped trou/trow during a party and thrust his ***** at a young woman on at least 1 occasion. The problem is that he seems to have lied about it later and tried to mislead/minimize surrounding facts (such as drinking to the point that he might not remember events). No one should lie under oath, our entire system is built on the idea that one tells the truth and the whole truth when under oath. Having a nominee to the Supreme Court (and sitting federal circuit court judge) even toe the line of perjury blew my mind.

(10-01-2019 10:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I feel like you are both being intentionally obtuse. While I have some concerns over what happened 30 years ago, that isn't my big problem. My problem is that he lied and/or was highly misleading about his drinking and various slang terms while testifying under oath at a congressional hearing. I mean, I literally wrote:
[quote='mrbig' pid='16339835' dateline='1569971991']
You seem to miss my entire point about Kavanaugh. The problem isn't that he (allegedly) drunkenly dropped trou/trow during a party and thrust his ***** at a young woman on at least 1 occasion. The problem is that he seems to have lied about it later and tried to mislead/minimize surrounding facts (such as drinking to the point that he might not remember events). No one should lie under oath, our entire system is built on the idea that one tells the truth and the whole truth when under oath. Having a nominee to the Supreme Court (and sitting federal circuit court judge) even toe the line of perjury blew my mind.

(10-02-2019 01:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess you didn't drink as much beer as I did in college, Big, since there are a lot of nights, some weekends, several parties, and an entire trip to New Orleans I cannot remember.

Heck, there plenty of days I was sober 30+ years ago that I cannot remember.

So when a guy says he cannot remember what happened at a party, I can believe him. Especially if the party was 30 years ago.

(10-02-2019 02:34 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 01:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess you didn't drink as much beer as I did in college, Big, since there are a lot of nights, some weekends, several parties, and an entire trip to New Orleans I cannot remember.

Heck, there plenty of days I was sober 30+ years ago that I cannot remember.

So when a guy says he cannot remember what happened at a party, I can believe him. Especially if the party was 30 years ago.

But that's just the thing … you acknowledge that you sometimes drank too much, to the point where you couldn't remember some events. You don't go under oath and then deny that you never drank that much. You answer the question honestly and admit it. And life moves on, because lots of people have done that. But when a person, under oath, denies it, and a bunch of other people come forward and contradict you, it is problematic.

Whatever, he is on the Court. Let's all leave it. You seem to get my point on hypocrisy, even though you would rather argue about politically ancient and unimportant examples that I used.

Quote:Hunter Biden’s Perfectly Legal, Socially Acceptable Corruption

(10-01-2019 08:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As you said, it is he said/she said. You have chosen to (a) believe her, and (b) assume he is lying. I choose the opposite. I just don't think you should predicate your position on choices that could go either way.

(10-03-2019 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As you said, it is he said/she said. You have chosen to (a) believe her, and (b) assume he is lying. I choose the opposite. I just don't think you should predicate your position on choices that could go either way.

Let me make a correction as i otherwise agree. I haven't chosen to believe him... I've chosen that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.... and that burden hasn't remotely been met. His recollection or not shouldn't imply guilt. That's not how our system of justice works. I can believe that he did something but without some reasonable proof, it shouldn't keep him from a position that he is otherwise qualified for.

(10-03-2019 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-demands-equal-playing-field-ahead-of-former-ukraine-envoy-volkers-scheduled-testimony/ar-AAIdfZX?li=BBnb7Kz

House Republicans are demanding an “equal playing field” in the Democrat-led impeachment probe against President Trump after Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said ahead of Thursday’s scheduled testimony from former U.S. envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker that GOP members of the Foreign Affairs Committee will not be permitted to ask questions or have equal representation during the hearing.

Is this fair?

Quote:The lead Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee wrote Wednesday evening: “I was alarmed to learn — less than 24 hours before the first interview is scheduled to start — that it will be led by the Intelligence Committee and that questioning will be done solely by their staff.”

“We were told that only a single Republican professional staffer from the Foreign Affairs Committee will be allowed to attend while the majority will have two,” Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the committee’s ranking member, continued. “These constraints on committee and Republican participation are unacceptable and at odds with House Rules and general fairness. We demand equal representation and participation in this inquiry, there is too much at stake for America and Congress.”

(10-03-2019 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As you said, it is he said/she said. You have chosen to (a) believe her, and (b) assume he is lying. I choose the opposite. I just don't think you should predicate your position on choices that could go either way.

Let me make a correction as i otherwise agree. I haven't chosen to believe him... I've chosen that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.... and that burden hasn't remotely been met. His recollection or not shouldn't imply guilt. That's not how our system of justice works. I can believe that he did something but without some reasonable proof, it shouldn't keep him from a position that he is otherwise qualified for.

(10-03-2019 02:09 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As you said, it is he said/she said. You have chosen to (a) believe her, and (b) assume he is lying. I choose the opposite. I just don't think you should predicate your position on choices that could go either way.

Let me make a correction as i otherwise agree. I haven't chosen to believe him... I've chosen that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.... and that burden hasn't remotely been met. His recollection or not shouldn't imply guilt. That's not how our system of justice works. I can believe that he did something but without some reasonable proof, it shouldn't keep him from a position that he is otherwise qualified for.

This was a job interview not a criminal proceeding.

(10-03-2019 04:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 02:09 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As you said, it is he said/she said. You have chosen to (a) believe her, and (b) assume he is lying. I choose the opposite. I just don't think you should predicate your position on choices that could go either way.

Let me make a correction as i otherwise agree. I haven't chosen to believe him... I've chosen that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.... and that burden hasn't remotely been met. His recollection or not shouldn't imply guilt. That's not how our system of justice works. I can believe that he did something but without some reasonable proof, it shouldn't keep him from a position that he is otherwise qualified for.

This was a job interview not a criminal proceeding.

That is the common and popular retort for people who wish to selectively apply the principles of rule of law at their whim, and with no other regard than the extremely shallow one.

(10-03-2019 02:09 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As you said, it is he said/she said. You have chosen to (a) believe her, and (b) assume he is lying. I choose the opposite. I just don't think you should predicate your position on choices that could go either way.

Let me make a correction as i otherwise agree. I haven't chosen to believe him... I've chosen that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.... and that burden hasn't remotely been met. His recollection or not shouldn't imply guilt. That's not how our system of justice works. I can believe that he did something but without some reasonable proof, it shouldn't keep him from a position that he is otherwise qualified for.

This was a job interview not a criminal proceeding.