***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[bigrockford]

bruh you just gonna completely ignore the fact bruh texted people to say they aint know deborah ramirez during the FBI investigation? Yes due process is needed but son’s been caught b

Ok, so this means he raped someone? Help me understand.....

 

[Based Jesus]

The calendar which shows he was at a gathering she described, in the timeframe she specified, is some sort of proof towards his innocence? Ok.

It's also not a criminal trial. It's a job application/interview. One he's been caught lying repeatedly during.
Even if he didn't rape her, everything else puts into doubt his worthiness of being a Justice.

 

[Belgium]

Ok, so this means he raped someone? Help me understand.....

Not necessarily. It does significantly taint his credibility. If this was a criminal trial, which is not the case nor will it be, then those text messages could potentially be construed as witness tampering. At the very least it is well beneath the conduct of anyone with a legal degree.
General rule; if a witness could testify against you then don't get anywhere near talking to that witness about what exactly they're going to say and most defiinitely never attempt to make any form of suggestion. Or anything that could be construed as a suggestion.

Paul Manafort and his buddy Konstantin Kilimnik texted some witnesses in Manafort's criminal case to 'suggest' what they would say and the result was both of them getting indicted on charges of witness tampering and conspiracy to obstruct justice.


Also, the texts suggest Kavanaugh lied under oath about when he first learned of the Ramirez allegations.

 

[cubanref]

I had someone tell me that if you are accused of a crime and you deem yourself innocent than there is no need for an investigation. He told me that no innocent man needs to clear his name if he says he didn't do it. He told me he wasn't a trump supporter and that it's a scary time to be a man

 

[cubanref]

Ok, even if he isn't telling the complete truth, he is at least providing some sort of evidence (calendar). Prove he is guilty. Period! She has zero evidence. You have to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove himself innocent. You can't just throw accusations out and be believed. Don't care about all the feels in here. Cry by yourself.

Did you even watch the hearing? This man just looked in silence when asked if he was cool with an FBI investigation to clear his name?
If someone accuses me of something that I didn't do you better believe I want a full investigation. FBI, CIA, NSA, NCIS, whatever to PROVE my innocence. I'm not going to sit there and say nah I'm good...

 

[rillo561]

You can't just throw accusations out and be believed. Don't care about all the feels in here. Cry by yourself.

"Lock her up"?

 

[cubanref]

"Lock her up?"

 

[superblytrife]

Ok, so this means he raped someone? Help me understand.....

It’s called perjury. He lied under oath about what/when he knew about the Ramirez scenario.

Nobody is going to be able to prove that these women were raped. You either believe them or you don’t, but nobody can PROVE it now.

Bottom line: if you perjure yourself IN YOUR JOB INTERVIEW, you’re not fit to be a Supreme Court Justice. If you say otherwise, you’re definitely a Trump supporter.

 

[blastercombo]

Ok, even if he isn't telling the complete truth, he is at least providing some sort of evidence (calendar). Prove he is guilty. Period! She has zero evidence. You have to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove himself innocent. You can't just throw accusations out and be believed. Don't care about all the feels in here. Cry by yourself.

Boy shut up. He himself just fumbled all his lies and refused to take the one thing that would end it all immediately (lie detector). The woman did take the test and passed 100%. Oh let me guess, not good enough for you?

 

[bigrockford]

Not necessarily. It does significantly taint his credibility. If this was a criminal trial, which is not the case nor will it be, then those text messages could potentially be construed as witness tampering. At the very least it is well beneath the conduct of anyone with a legal degree.

Paul Manafort and his buddy Konstantin Kilimnik texted some witnesses in Manafort's criminal case to 'suggest' what they would say and the result was both of them getting indicted on charges of witness tampering and conspiracy to obstruct justice.


Also, the texts suggest Kavanaugh lied under oath about when he first learned of the Ramirez allegations.

Ok, thank you for those cold facts. Respect.

Did you even watch the hearing? This man just looked in silence when asked if he was cool with an FBI investigation to clear his name?
If someone accuses me of something that I didn't do you better believe I want a full investigation. FBI, CIA, NSA, NCIS, whatever to PROVE my innocence. I'm not going to sit there and say nah I'm good...

But wasn't there a FBI investigator just in court for some funny business related to Trump? Nah, I'm coo on the FBI to if I'm Kav.

The calendar which shows he was at a gathering she described, in the timeframe she specified, is some sort of proof towards his innocence? Ok.

It's also not a criminal trial. It's a job application/interview. One he's been caught lying repeatedly during.
Even if he didn't rape her, everything else puts into doubt his worthiness of being a Justice.

I can understand this. Did she specify anything tho? Did she specify anything outside of Kav did it?

 

[blastercombo]

A hand written calendar being used as bullet proof evidence is hilarious. I can go print one out now for any year and any day and I guess get away with rape and murder if I’m investigated. You have to be a complete idiot to support that as factual evidence

 

[bigrockford]

Boy shut up. He himself just fumbled all his lies and refused to take the one thing that would end it all immediately (lie detector). The woman did take the test and passed 100%. Oh let me guess, not good enough for you?

Is it possible for you to conduct yourself respectfully at all? Can you reply to anything without including a childish statement? You're not helping either side of this debate. I have nothing else to say to you.

 

[IATT]

 

[BIG LEEMELONE]

Nobody finds it strange that he held on to a calendar from 1982?

 

[Belgium]

Speaking of Manafort...
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/01/paul-manafort-meets-mueller-prosecutors-855388
Manafort meets with Mueller prosecutors
The sit-down stems from a guilty plea that requires the former Trump campaign chairman to cooperate with the special counsel's probe.

Paul Manafort met Monday with special counsel Robert Mueller’s office as part of his cooperation agreement in the special counsel’s investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election.

The sit-down at the special counsel’s downtown Washington D.C. office stems from Manafort’s guilty plea last month, which requires the former Trump campaign chairman to cooperate “fully, truthfully, completely, and forthrightly…in any and all matters as to which the government deems the cooperation relevant.”

POLITICO spotted two attorneys for Manafort — Richard Westling and Tom Zehnle — outside Mueller’s office early Monday afternoon speaking with one of the special counsel’s lead prosecutors, Andrew Weissmann. The men parted ways to buy lunch and then were seen returning with their food to the secure building where the special counsel’s team is headquartered.

Manafort pleaded guilty last month in a federal court in Washington to conspiracy against the U.S. and conspiring to obstruct justice. As part of the plea, Mueller’s team dropped charges against Manafort including money laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent for his work on behalf of Ukrainian political parties. They also agreed to dismiss deadlocked bank- and tax-fraud charges from a Virginia trial with the condition Manafort would conclude a “successful cooperation” with the special counsel.

Sentencing for the longtime GOP operative is not scheduled to occur until after the November midterms, with a joint written report from the special counsel and Manafort’s lawyers due Nov. 16.

As Trump’s campaign chair, Manafort played a leading role during several pivotal moments now at the center of the Russia probe.

The longtime GOP operative exchanged emails with other campaign aides about then-foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulous’ efforts to arrange a meeting between Trump and Russian officials. He also attended the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer who promised dirt on Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

Trump, his lawyers and allies have nonetheless downplayed the guilty plea, saying the information Manafort is providing to the special counsel has no bearing on the president.

“I believe that he will tell the truth. And if he tells the truth, no problem,” the president told reporters last month.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Like Michael Che said, this is not a criminal trial, this is a job interview.

If I applied to a job and this much crap came up, and I wanted and raved like a buffoon in front of the hiring committee, I am not getting that job.

Conservatives think that rich white men are so entitled to positions they didn't earn and had to cheat to get, that the thought of society holding them to the same standards they hold everyone else to costing them that position angers them.

I am white male and privileged. How dare you question by clearly flawed character.

 

[fargin]

Maybe we should just confirm him and add a little rape asterisk to his title.

 

[aepps20]

Heard it all now

Libs and Dums blame Straight White Men for everything. I agree that race is playing a huge factor in the Kavs confirmation debate.

 

[rillo561]

Even if you put the sexual assault stuff aside, he's been caught a in a few lies, and most of them are about little things that can be easily proven.

 

[blastercombo]

Like Michael Che said, this is not a criminal trial, this is a job interview.

If I applied to a job and this much crap came up, and I wanted and raved like a buffoon in front of the hiring committee, I am not getting that job.

Conservatives think that rich white men are so entitled to positions they didn't earn and had to cheat to get, that the thought of society holds them to the standards the hold everyone else costing them that position angers them.

I am white male and privileged. How dare you question by clearly flawed character.

More like “yeah I did all this but I’m still white”

 

[dwalk31]

Even if you put the sexual assault stuff aside, he's been caught a in a few lies, and most of them are about little things that can be easily proven.

What lie?

 

[dwalk31]

The calendar which shows he was at a gathering she described, in the timeframe she specified, is some sort of proof towards his innocence? Ok.

It's also not a criminal trial. It's a job application/interview. One he's been caught lying repeatedly during.
Even if he didn't rape her, everything else puts into doubt his worthiness of being a Justice.

You don't have to prove innocence... that isn't how it works. Not in a job interview either. That's why they ask "have you ever been convicted of a felony." Not, "have you ever been accused of something." Like... come on...And you can't point to any "lie." Dude said he drank, and at times he drank too much. What did he lie about?

 

[dwalk31]

A hand written calendar being used as bullet proof evidence is hilarious. I can go print on out now for any year and any day and I guess get away with rape and murder if I’m investigated. You have to be a complete idiot to support that as factual evidence

He doesn't have the burden of proof.... Literally nothing he--or she--produces (aside from a video, DNA evidence, or testimony from someone in the room at the time) will move the needle in terms of what is "proven." And the person who was allegedly in the room at the time said they never remember him acting in the way described. So.... this wouldn't even be enough to pass probable cause. In fact, many judges dont even allow confessions--alone--to rise to the level of probable cause.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Employers don't just take my word for it that I am not on drugs or have no felonies. They drug test me and run background checks. I know for a fact Wendy's does both. Don't play dumb Frylock

 

[dwalk31]

It’s called perjury. He lied under oath about what/when he knew about the Ramirez scenario.

Nobody is going to be able to prove that these women were raped. You either believe them or you don’t, but nobody can PROVE it now.

Bottom line: if you perjure yourself IN YOUR JOB INTERVIEW, you’re not fit to be a Supreme Court Justice. If you say otherwise, you’re definitely a Trump supporter.

Please post what he lied about. I keep hearing a lie referenced, but no one is pointing to it. The only "lie" that people are referencing is that he mischaracterized his drinking during the time. And that is a matter of perception. He admitted he drank and at times too many. Not sure where the lie is there.