Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

[unofan]

90?
C’mon.
I’m taking the over on that. .

When I saw it I wondered if that’d been taken completely in context because it simply blows up everything Sen Feinstein had put out there.

It's townhall.com. Of course it was taken out of context.

[joecct]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

@JoeConchaTV: Breaking on Kavanaugh: Christine Ford will not testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Monday per her lawyer on CNN. Will not appear at a public hearing without a thorough FBI investigation being completed.

[bostonewe]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Her name, phone number, address, and public information have been Tweeted out at least 3 times per the Washington Post. I can't imagine why more women don't come forward when assaulted.

[trixR4kids]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Her name, phone number, address, and public information have been Tweeted out at least 3 times per the Washington Post. I can't imagine why more women don't come forward when assaulted.

Pretty sure one of the Moore accusers had her house burned down.

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Death threats all around. Can’t imagine why women don’t come forward

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Also shows you shouldn’t be a woman. So many men rushing to condemn her.
Had a debate with a cousin of mine this week and he’s just sick with worry about the innocent men that metoo has ruined. Realized he’s been conditioned to believe men over women, and value men over women in just about everything. Not a word of sorrow for female victims

Not to defend your cousin but I worry about it too. I want the jerks to get destroyed but no one else. Plus every time someone is falsely accused it damages the movement.

Culture change is needed badly, but we need to make sure to do it the right way.

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

If a buddy of mine had been wrongfully accused and I could testify to try and make it right, I would do it in a heartbeat. Now it just looks to me like he knows he can't tell the truth about what happened that night.

Yeah it definitely looks that way. Might not be true but that is definitely the way the optics play out. His little book doesnt help the situation...

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

@JoeConchaTV: Breaking on Kavanaugh: Christine Ford will not testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Monday per her lawyer on CNN. Will not appear at a public hearing without a thorough FBI investigation being completed.

Cant say I blame her. She is going to be tarred and feathered by a bunch of sexist white ********s and every time she even hinted at thinking sex is fun will be used as proof she is a whore who probably wanted to be assaulted. If I was her lawyer I wouldnt let her testify either. Problem is it will now almost guarantee Kavanaugh moves on.

The FBI wont look into this because at this point there isnt much to look into.

[bostonewe]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Not to defend your cousin but I worry about it too. I want the jerks to get destroyed but no one else. Plus every time someone is falsely accused it damages the movement.
Culture change is needed badly, but we need to make sure to do it the right way.

Because I've seen your posts, I know you're not an "Not All Men" guy, but the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women have a report that states: " 2-8 percent of reported rapes are false, but the number that are false accusations is smaller" so while it is absolutely possible for false accusations, it is extremely unlikely.

[SJHovey]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

The FBI wont look into this because at this point there isnt much to look into.

The other point is this. We're not looking at a criminal prosecution here. There is no chance any prosecutor in the world would ever take this on, so we don't need a law enforcement investigation.

She doesn't need to present evidence, or have the FBI do it for her, to sustain a conviction. She'll never reach that standard. What's the FBI going to do? They're going to do the same thing the Senate Committee should do. This is about listening to her story, asking relevant questions to see if the factual allegations add up, listening to his response, and making a credibility decision. If, as a Senator, you tend to believe her story (even if you wouldn't vote as a juror to criminally convict him), you vote against his confirmation. It isn't that complicated.

I feel like the whole FBI thing is a bit of political game playing, and I'm not sure it's the victim that's pushing that issue, even in spite of her recent request. It feels like the Democrats are pushing for this to a) further delay any vote, and b) hoping for a report from the FBI that basically reads, "she said this, and we have no reason to disbelieve her, and he denies the allegation." Then they can parade that report around and say the FBI found her credible, perhaps deflecting from their own responsibility to make that decision.

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Because I've seen your posts, I know you're not an "Not All Men" guy, but the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women have a report that states: " 2-8 percent of reported rapes are false, but the number that are false accusations is smaller" so while it is absolutely possible for false accusations, it is extremely unlikely.

Whether it is unlikely or not is not the point. And FWIW I have seen that number be disproven before and I have also seen people falsely accused. If one person is falsely accused that is still wrong and all it does is become the poster boy for the opposition. I am very militant in my support of going after anyone accused but right now we are destroying people before they have their day in court and that will bite you in the *** sooner or later.

What I am talking about is everything else in the movement. I got in this argument last night actually with my girlfriend. For the culture to change we need to acknowledge that there is degrees to this stuff and that there is definite grey area. What is and is not appropriate changes with the person and the circumstance. She gave an example:

She has a friend she works with, and older guy. He likes to put his hand on her shoulder...not in a sleazy way but she is not very touchy feely so it makes her kind of uncomfortable. (she would never actually would report him because she knows him and it doesnt really offend her)

We both agree that if she is uncomfortable she should either tell him (if she feels she can) or talk to HR or his superior. I asked her though "what if he gets fired or severely reprimanded?" which is something that is starting to happen because in various careers they have to be proactive or risk backlash. She thinks that is ok whereas I dont. And the reason isnt that I dont think what he did was a big deal, because that is in the eye of the beholder, but because no one told him prior to that that what he was doing was inappropriate and he has never really had a chance to adjust his behavior now that he knows she is uncomfortable. Going from 0-60 is not the way to go but right now that is what we are doing every time someone gets accused.

The danger we have, and I include me because I am about as big of a believer in the #MeToo Movement and all of its offshoots as you can get, is we are getting to the point where we tar and feather and ask questions later and that is dangerous. What will end up killing momentum is collateral damage. You start destroying everyone who is accused of anything and the backlash will be reminiscent of how White Voters backlashed to having a Black President. If we want true culture change you need to change the behavior not try and even the playing fields. They wont be even, no matter how many people you take down.

[burd]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

The other point is this. We're not looking at a criminal prosecution here. There is no chance any prosecutor in the world would ever take this on, so we don't need a law enforcement investigation.

She doesn't need to present evidence, or have the FBI do it for her, to sustain a conviction. She'll never reach that standard. What's the FBI going to do? They're going to do the same thing the Senate Committee should do. This is about listening to her story, asking relevant questions to see if the factual allegations add up, listening to his response, and making a credibility decision. If, as a Senator, you tend to believe her story (even if you wouldn't vote as a juror to criminally convict him), you vote against his confirmation. It isn't that complicated.

I feel like the whole FBI thing is a bit of political game playing, and I'm not sure it's the victim that's pushing that issue, even in spite of her recent request. It feels like the Democrats are pushing for this to a) further delay any vote, and b) hoping for a report from the FBI that basically reads, "she said this, and we have no reason to disbelieve her, and he denies the allegation." Then they can parade that report around and say the FBI found her credible, perhaps deflecting from their own responsibility to make that decision.

Knowing that there is a good chance the GOP committee members will go after her like they did Anita Hill, I can see why she would prefer a more disciplined, neutral, just-the-facts-m'am approach such as a law enforcement agency could provide. But you're right that it does not seem to fall within the FBI's jurisdiction or job description. I don't know what role they or other alphabet agencies have in the overall background investigation of SC nominees, though.

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

The other point is this. We're not looking at a criminal prosecution here. There is no chance any prosecutor in the world would ever take this on, so we don't need a law enforcement investigation.

She doesn't need to present evidence, or have the FBI do it for her, to sustain a conviction. She'll never reach that standard. What's the FBI going to do? They're going to do the same thing the Senate Committee should do. This is about listening to her story, asking relevant questions to see if the factual allegations add up, listening to his response, and making a credibility decision. If, as a Senator, you tend to believe her story (even if you wouldn't vote as a juror to criminally convict him), you vote against his confirmation. It isn't that complicated.

I feel like the whole FBI thing is a bit of political game playing, and I'm not sure it's the victim that's pushing that issue, even in spite of her recent request. It feels like the Democrats are pushing for this to a) further delay any vote, and b) hoping for a report from the FBI that basically reads, "she said this, and we have no reason to disbelieve her, and he denies the allegation." Then they can parade that report around and say the FBI found her credible, perhaps deflecting from their own responsibility to make that decision.

I dont think they want a prosecution...I think they want the FBI to do what it did in the Thomas/Hill situation and take their statements and look into the claims. There isnt much you can actually do on the criminal side but they have the resources to look into it deeper than Congress did. All Congress can really do is take testimony at this point.

I just dont see them doing it in this climate though. And unless they find someone else who says they had a similar situation it is going to be a lot of people saying either I dont know or I never heard anything.

[Handyman]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

Knowing that there is a good chance the GOP committee members will go after her like they did Anita Hill, I can see why she would prefer a more disciplined, neutral, just-the-facts-m'am approach such as a law enforcement agency could provide. But you're right that it does not seem to fall within the FBI's jurisdiction or job description. I don't know what role they or other alphabet agencies have in the overall background investigation of SC nominees, though.

The FBI did it in the Thomas hearing at the behest of President Bush.

[burd]

Re: Scotus 11: Will Thomas Ever Speak Again?

The FBI did it in the Thomas hearing at the behest of President Bush.

There you go: precedent.