Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Trump Administration
Author Message
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,786
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #4721
RE: Trump Administration
(09-28-2018 01:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  With respect to the Ford accusations, has Judge, the other person accused of being present during the assault, been interviewed?

I agree that the Senate hearing was not a search for the truth, by either side. But do you actually believe there has been a legitimate investigation into the allegations?

Judge has sent two letters, under penalty of felony, saying that he has no memory of the party in question and that those actions do not sound like Kananaugh. Of course, they are just letters, much like the one that brought this all all about.

The letter that brought all of this resulted in the person testifying to Congress.

I wonder how many attorneys here would be satisfied with the only response of a key witness being a letter, one that did not even answer specific questions asked.

The letter that resulted in the testifying was meant by the writer to be kept confidential, and only resulted in testimony because somebody on the left leaked it., probably to force her into testifying.Judge's letters have been made public

Judge's letters are under penalty of felony; Ford's was not.

I wonder how many attorneys would be satisfied with sworn, written testimony? Mueller apparently is.

Still, the larger point is, a letter was enough to bring this matter up, why is a letter not now enough?

I believe Mueller is OK with sworn, written testimony to questions he wants answered. I don't believe letting anyone write about whatever topic they want is satisfactory.

A letter is not enough because it does not allow professionals to probe the witness and test their answers. I get that he wrote a letter under penalty of a felony - is there no record in the history of our judicial system where someone has lied in a similar instance?

Bill Clinton lied under penalty of felony. Will that do?
09-28-2018 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,786
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #4722
RE: Trump Administration
I think a week for the FBI to investigate will give one of the following results:

A. They conclude BK is guilty. Democrats are giddy. Probability: 0.0000000000000000000000000001%
B; They conclude Ford is lying or wrong: Democrats ask for more investigation, blaming the lack of results on the short time period. Probablity: 0.000000001%
C. They conclude they cannot prove Ford's story or disprove his: Democrats ask for more time: probability: 100 - (A+B)%.

Clearly just a ploy for time. Republicans might have to allow it to get Flake's vote.
(Aside: Has there ever been a better name for this kind of person than Flake?)
09-28-2018 02:20 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,700
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #4723
RE: Trump Administration
(09-28-2018 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Judge has sent two letters, under penalty of felony, saying that he has no memory of the party in question and that those actions do not sound like Kananaugh. Of course, they are just letters, much like the one that brought this all all about.

The letter that brought all of this resulted in the person testifying to Congress.

I wonder how many attorneys here would be satisfied with the only response of a key witness being a letter, one that did not even answer specific questions asked.

The letter that resulted in the testifying was meant by the writer to be kept confidential, and only resulted in testimony because somebody on the left leaked it., probably to force her into testifying.Judge's letters have been made public

Judge's letters are under penalty of felony; Ford's was not.

I wonder how many attorneys would be satisfied with sworn, written testimony? Mueller apparently is.

Still, the larger point is, a letter was enough to bring this matter up, why is a letter not now enough?

I believe Mueller is OK with sworn, written testimony to questions he wants answered. I don't believe letting anyone write about whatever topic they want is satisfactory.

A letter is not enough because it does not allow professionals to probe the witness and test their answers. I get that he wrote a letter under penalty of a felony - is there no record in the history of our judicial system where someone has lied in a similar instance?

Bill Clinton lied under penalty of felony. Will that do?

Perfect example. So you see, people still lie, even if they're being threatened with a federal crime! Even if it's over something stupid.

That's why Judge should have his answers tested.
09-28-2018 02:29 PM
Find all posts by this user
illiniowl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,162
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 77
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #4724
RE: Trump Administration
(09-28-2018 01:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:11 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 10:59 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 09:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Per CNN, the ABA has sent a letter encouraging the Senate to request an FBI investigation into the Kavanaugh accusations.


https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/27/polit...index.html

The ABA is an organization that performs objective functions such as rating jurist qualifications, and I do believe it largely keeps political hackery out of that function, but it also engages in political advocacy -- and when it does, it is undeniably left-leaning. Calling for "a full FBI investigation" now is a transparently, 100% political act. There already has been an investigation, in full view of the nation for weeks, with no expense spared and with no rocks left unturned. There are no facts left to uncover. The only purpose of further (pointless) investigation is to stall for time. It is not a search for truth. Just be honest about that, please.

With respect to the Ford accusations, has Judge, the other person accused of being present during the assault, been interviewed?

I agree that the Senate hearing was not a search for the truth, by either side. But do you actually believe there has been a legitimate investigation into the allegations?

I believe (although I'm open to correction) that Judge has been interviewed in the sense that Senate investigators have met with him and posed questions to him at some point (possibly multiple points) over the past 3 weeks. I think I can concede that those investigators were not wearing FBI badges at the time, but it is a federal crime to lie to Congressional investigators just like it is to lie to the FBI (18 USC 1001©(2)). I would imagine that he was also talked to previously by the FBI itself (or its subcontractor) as part of Kavanaugh's FBI background investigations (6 of them) throughout his career, although admittedly not directly about the burning issue of Ford's allegations. And, of course, he has also given at least two written statements, and not just mere letters, but statements under penalty of perjury. The only thing to my knowledge he's not been open to doing voluntarily is testifying or speaking *in public*. So even a vaunted FBI investigation could only get out of him that which he has already given - multiple times.

Yes, I think this matter has been honestly investigated. I don't think it can reasonably be contended otherwise. Good lord, this has been the complete opposite of a rush-job sham conducted in secret. Conservatives like me certainly have our qualms about the unfairness and ugliness of it all, but one thing that's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that we live in a riotously open democracy, and with a completely unfettered free press to boot. It's been investigated to the proverbial hilt. Questions have been asked in public or in private of all possible witnesses, not only by people with badges but also by people with press passes who would want nothing more in life than to stop this nomination, which is to say quite a few of them. No brighter spotlight can be shown at this point. There are no rocks left to turn over. The facts are what they are, and yep, they're incomplete, but they're not going to get any completer.

Honestly, try to imagine some poor schlub at the FBI now being told "go investigate this." Would you not think to yourself, "What could I possibly do that hasn't already been done?" I do know what the end result of any such investigation would be, though. It would be a report that lays out all the same incomplete facts we know right now, and then says "draw your own conclusions" at the bottom. The Democrats know this, too. They just want that process to take no less than 40 days.

I don't believe Judge has been questioned as mentioned, except maybe as part of the background investigation. However, if he had been questioned privately about these allegations, then I would change my stance and agree that an investigation has been completed.

I do not think having Judge appear in a public hearing is necessary, I just think that, at this point, having him answer questions from trained professionals is warranted. I've not seen an article that says he has done this - but similar to your preface, I could be wrong.

It may be that when investigators reached out to him to question him, he essentially said (through a lawyer) "I'll write you out a sworn statement instead" -- and he did (twice now). No professional investigator would turn that down, because you've gotten the witness to commit to a story when he had every right not to even talk to you in the first place. That's the problem with insisting that only live (even if private) questioning of Judge will put this matter to rest, because he can't be compelled to sit for it. But far from clamming up, he's given the next best thing, which could also be called the best realistic thing given that the *ideal* thing (for you) cannot be compelled.

His statements to date could be lies, sure, but surely you are not suggesting that they should reasonably be inferred, in the court of public opinion, to be lies if he essentially chooses to stand on them from here on out?
09-28-2018 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #4725
RE: Trump Administration
(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think a week for the FBI to investigate will give one of the following results:

A. They conclude BK is guilty. Democrats are giddy. Probability: 0.0000000000000000000000000001%
B; They conclude Ford is lying or wrong: Democrats ask for more investigation, blaming the lack of results on the short time period. Probablity: 0.000000001%
C. They conclude they cannot prove Ford's story or disprove his: Democrats ask for more time: probability: 100 - (A+B)%.

Clearly just a ploy for time. Republicans might have to allow it to get Flake's vote.
(Aside: Has there ever been a better name for this kind of person than Flake?)

And when C occurs (and we have the same evidence as where we are now), the incessant beat for 'more' will keep on. Even in the light of zero corroborative evidence.

I have no problems with doing this to get Flake on. And, probably at this point Murkowski. Thats 50.

And watch the gnashing level rise.

It is amazing to me where we are with literally zero supporting evidence. But, sadly, I am not surprised. Especially in light of the historical lengths the Democrats will stretch personal destruction to get a SCOTUS seat. And it is amazing how many people are either happy or neutral wannabe with where this farce has brought us, or supportive of this process. And they are utterly oblivious to (or perhaps happy with) the methodology and process being utilized.

By the way, the Democrats wont *ask* for more time, it will be a demand.
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2018 03:07 PM by tanqtonic.)
09-28-2018 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,857
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3214
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #4726
RE: Trump Administration
(09-28-2018 02:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The letter that brought all of this resulted in the person testifying to Congress.
I wonder how many attorneys here would be satisfied with the only response of a key witness being a letter, one that did not even answer specific questions asked.
The letter that resulted in the testifying was meant by the writer to be kept confidential, and only resulted in testimony because somebody on the left leaked it., probably to force her into testifying.Judge's letters have been made public
Judge's letters are under penalty of felony; Ford's was not.
I wonder how many attorneys would be satisfied with sworn, written testimony? Mueller apparently is.
Still, the larger point is, a letter was enough to bring this matter up, why is a letter not now enough?
I believe Mueller is OK with sworn, written testimony to questions he wants answered. I don't believe letting anyone write about whatever topic they want is satisfactory.
A letter is not enough because it does not allow professionals to probe the witness and test their answers. I get that he wrote a letter under penalty of a felony - is there no record in the history of our judicial system where someone has lied in a similar instance?
Bill Clinton lied under penalty of felony. Will that do?
Perfect example. So you see, people still lie, even if they're being threatened with a federal crime! Even if it's over something stupid.
That's why Judge should have his answers tested.

And so should she. With pointed questions asked to probe the obvious holes in her story and contradictory evidence.
09-28-2018 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #4727
RE: Trump Administration
(09-28-2018 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 02:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The letter that resulted in the testifying was meant by the writer to be kept confidential, and only resulted in testimony because somebody on the left leaked it., probably to force her into testifying.Judge's letters have been made public
Judge's letters are under penalty of felony; Ford's was not.
I wonder how many attorneys would be satisfied with sworn, written testimony? Mueller apparently is.
Still, the larger point is, a letter was enough to bring this matter up, why is a letter not now enough?
I believe Mueller is OK with sworn, written testimony to questions he wants answered. I don't believe letting anyone write about whatever topic they want is satisfactory.
A letter is not enough because it does not allow professionals to probe the witness and test their answers. I get that he wrote a letter under penalty of a felony - is there no record in the history of our judicial system where someone has lied in a similar instance?
Bill Clinton lied under penalty of felony. Will that do?
Perfect example. So you see, people still lie, even if they're being threatened with a federal crime! Even if it's over something stupid.
That's why Judge should have his answers tested.

And so should she. With pointed questions asked to probe the obvious holes in her story and contradictory evidence.

Thats sexist. You old, white, man you.....
09-28-2018 03:43 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,700
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #4728
RE: Trump Administration
(09-28-2018 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 02:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The letter that resulted in the testifying was meant by the writer to be kept confidential, and only resulted in testimony because somebody on the left leaked it., probably to force her into testifying.Judge's letters have been made public
Judge's letters are under penalty of felony; Ford's was not.
I wonder how many attorneys would be satisfied with sworn, written testimony? Mueller apparently is.
Still, the larger point is, a letter was enough to bring this matter up, why is a letter not now enough?
I believe Mueller is OK with sworn, written testimony to questions he wants answered. I don't believe letting anyone write about whatever topic they want is satisfactory.
A letter is not enough because it does not allow professionals to probe the witness and test their answers. I get that he wrote a letter under penalty of a felony - is there no record in the history of our judicial system where someone has lied in a similar instance?
Bill Clinton lied under penalty of felony. Will that do?
Perfect example. So you see, people still lie, even if they're being threatened with a federal crime! Even if it's over something stupid.
That's why Judge should have his answers tested.

And so should she. With pointed questions asked to probe the obvious holes in her story and contradictory evidence.

Agreed. Isn't that what happened yesterday?

The woman interviewing Ford for the Reps is an Arizona sex crimes prosecutor.
09-28-2018 03:53 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,786
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #4729
RE: Trump Administration
(09-28-2018 03:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 02:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I believe Mueller is OK with sworn, written testimony to questions he wants answered. I don't believe letting anyone write about whatever topic they want is satisfactory.
A letter is not enough because it does not allow professionals to probe the witness and test their answers. I get that he wrote a letter under penalty of a felony - is there no record in the history of our judicial system where someone has lied in a similar instance?
Bill Clinton lied under penalty of felony. Will that do?
Perfect example. So you see, people still lie, even if they're being threatened with a federal crime! Even if it's over something stupid.
That's why Judge should have his answers tested.

And so should she. With pointed questions asked to probe the obvious holes in her story and contradictory evidence.

Agreed. Isn't that what happened yesterday?

The woman interviewing Ford for the Reps is an Arizona sex crimes prosecutor.

No, that didn't happen. she was treated with kid gloves, and that included not asking pointed follow up questions.
09-28-2018 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #4730
RE: Trump Administration
(09-28-2018 03:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 02:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 01:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I believe Mueller is OK with sworn, written testimony to questions he wants answered. I don't believe letting anyone write about whatever topic they want is satisfactory.
A letter is not enough because it does not allow professionals to probe the witness and test their answers. I get that he wrote a letter under penalty of a felony - is there no record in the history of our judicial system where someone has lied in a similar instance?
Bill Clinton lied under penalty of felony. Will that do?
Perfect example. So you see, people still lie, even if they're being threatened with a federal crime! Even if it's over something stupid.
That's why Judge should have his answers tested.

And so should she. With pointed questions asked to probe the obvious holes in her story and contradictory evidence.

Agreed. Isn't that what happened yesterday?

The woman interviewing Ford for the Reps is an Arizona sex crimes prosecutor.

She didnt receive anything close to a cross examination. The Republican's had the oppty, but would be labeled scumbags for doing it the way it should be.

Congrats to your side for setting those optics. Of course the minority members didnt fail to try and make issue of it. One of the 'requirements' that the counsel (the one Feinstein directed Ford to while stonewalling even Ford's existence to anybody) was that the meanie Repub Senators themselves *must* be the interviewers.
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2018 05:23 PM by tanqtonic.)
09-28-2018 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #4731
RE: Trump Administration
Here it is in a nutshell:
Quote:I'm supposed to accept Ford's word, based on nothing but her display of emotions. And I'm not supposed to accept Kavanaugh's word, because he got emotional. That's a neat trick, isn't it? "Heads I win, tails you lose."
09-28-2018 05:45 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #4732
RE: Trump Administration
(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think a week for the FBI to investigate will give one of the following results:

A. They conclude BK is guilty. Democrats are giddy. Probability: 0.0000000000000000000000000001%
B; They conclude Ford is lying or wrong: Democrats ask for more investigation, blaming the lack of results on the short time period. Probablity: 0.000000001%
C. They conclude they cannot prove Ford's story or disprove his: Democrats ask for more time: probability: 100 - (A+B)%.

Clearly just a ploy for time. Republicans might have to allow it to get Flake's vote.
(Aside: Has there ever been a better name for this kind of person than Flake?)

Care to guess as to how Ford, through her attorney, has responded (less than 3 hours after the brokered deal)? Class? Class? Anyone?
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2018 09:21 PM by tanqtonic.)
09-28-2018 09:20 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,786
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #4733
RE: Trump Administration
(09-28-2018 09:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think a week for the FBI to investigate will give one of the following results:

A. They conclude BK is guilty. Democrats are giddy. Probability: 0.0000000000000000000000000001%
B; They conclude Ford is lying or wrong: Democrats ask for more investigation, blaming the lack of results on the short time period. Probablity: 0.000000001%
C. They conclude they cannot prove Ford's story or disprove his: Democrats ask for more time: probability: 100 - (A+B)%.

Clearly just a ploy for time. Republicans might have to allow it to get Flake's vote.
(Aside: Has there ever been a better name for this kind of person than Flake?)

Care to guess as to how Ford, through her attorney, has responded (less than 3 hours after the brokered deal)? Class? Class? Anyone?

Is that the attorneys that Feinstein got her?
09-28-2018 09:32 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #4734
RE: Trump Administration
(09-28-2018 09:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 09:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think a week for the FBI to investigate will give one of the following results:

A. They conclude BK is guilty. Democrats are giddy. Probability: 0.0000000000000000000000000001%
B; They conclude Ford is lying or wrong: Democrats ask for more investigation, blaming the lack of results on the short time period. Probablity: 0.000000001%
C. They conclude they cannot prove Ford's story or disprove his: Democrats ask for more time: probability: 100 - (A+B)%.

Clearly just a ploy for time. Republicans might have to allow it to get Flake's vote.
(Aside: Has there ever been a better name for this kind of person than Flake?)

Care to guess as to how Ford, through her attorney, has responded (less than 3 hours after the brokered deal)? Class? Class? Anyone?

Is that the attorneys that Feinstein got her?

Yeah, the one she was referring Ford to right around the time Kavanaugh visited her in her office. Close to two months ago.
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2018 09:36 PM by tanqtonic.)
09-28-2018 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user
75src Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,591
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #4735
RE: Trump Administration
And the stage right before death for Feinstein which is you run again for another 6 year term when you are 85.

(09-28-2018 09:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 09:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think a week for the FBI to investigate will give one of the following results:

A. They conclude BK is guilty. Democrats are giddy. Probability: 0.0000000000000000000000000001%
B; They conclude Ford is lying or wrong: Democrats ask for more investigation, blaming the lack of results on the short time period. Probablity: 0.000000001%
C. They conclude they cannot prove Ford's story or disprove his: Democrats ask for more time: probability: 100 - (A+B)%.

Clearly just a ploy for time. Republicans might have to allow it to get Flake's vote.
(Aside: Has there ever been a better name for this kind of person than Flake?)

Care to guess as to how Ford, through her attorney, has responded (less than 3 hours after the brokered deal)? Class? Class? Anyone?

Is that the attorneys that Feinstein got her?
09-28-2018 11:02 PM
Find all posts by this user
At Ease Offline
Banned

Posts: 17,134
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #4736
RE: Trump Administration
10-01-2018 12:56 PM
Find all posts by this user
At Ease Offline
Banned

Posts: 17,134
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #4737
RE: Trump Administration
[Image: kavcartoon.jpg]

Quote:A powerful political cartoon depicting the assault of Lady Justice has gone viral in the wake of recent allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The graphic image is an explicit reference to how California professor Christine Blasey Ford described an alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh when they were both in high school in 1982. (Bruce MacKinnon / THE CANADIAN PRESS/the Halifax Chronicle Herald)

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018...viral.html
10-01-2018 01:10 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #4738
RE: Trump Administration
At Ease:

do you ever bother to make a post that isn't a drive-by, uncommented link?
10-01-2018 02:18 PM
Find all posts by this user
illiniowl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,162
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 77
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #4739
RE: Trump Administration
(10-01-2018 01:10 PM)At Ease Wrote:  
Quote:A powerful political cartoon depicting the assault of Lady Justice has gone viral in the wake of recent allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The graphic image is an explicit reference to how California professor Christine Blasey Ford described an alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh when they were both in high school in 1982. (Bruce MacKinnon / THE CANADIAN PRESS/the Halifax Chronicle Herald)

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018...viral.html

What a germane and edifying contribution to the discussion you've made: the views of a Canadian political cartoonist. Who is also a plagiarist, as I have seen the same asinine, juvenile depiction of Kavanaugh muffling the Statue of Liberty.

If you have an argument to make, go ahead and make it. Use your words.
10-01-2018 02:57 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #4740
RE: Trump Administration
(10-01-2018 02:57 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  
(10-01-2018 01:10 PM)At Ease Wrote:  
Quote:A powerful political cartoon depicting the assault of Lady Justice has gone viral in the wake of recent allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The graphic image is an explicit reference to how California professor Christine Blasey Ford described an alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh when they were both in high school in 1982. (Bruce MacKinnon / THE CANADIAN PRESS/the Halifax Chronicle Herald)

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018...viral.html

What a germane and edifying contribution to the discussion you've made: the views of a Canadian political cartoonist. Who is also a plagiarist, as I have seen the same asinine, juvenile depiction of Kavanaugh muffling the Statue of Liberty.

If you have an argument to make, go ahead and make it. Use your words.

He doesnt. Ever.

His posts are to discussion what Raymond Joseph Teller is to stand up comedy.
10-01-2018 03:54 PM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.